User talk:LedRush

Ark-Hives
User talk:LedRush/Archive001 User talk:LedRush/Archive002 User talk:LedRush/Archive003

Easy Access to Sub-pages

• User:LedRush/Bucknell Pong
• User:LedRush/Amanda Knox

Editing

Thanks for the support man, but I'm afraid the other guys will be watching my stuff and deleting my contributions like they did with my other stuff.--SteinlageT (talk) 05:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Mega Drive article - VRC section

Hey, apart the other stuff going on, I was wondering if you could help cleanup the VRC section in the article. If you think it doesn't need any cleanup, then feel free to take the tag away, but I think it may be a little confusing (not too sure.)--SexyKick 06:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

So without the "+" there, how is the "over" in "over 4 million" and "over 2 million" (1994+1995) included in the max estimate? I didn't think writing "over" before that would be very encyclopedic either, but I was unsure.--SexyKick 03:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that writing "more than" or "over" is more encyclopedic than the symbol. Thanks for cleaning up my initial edits.LedRush (talk) 05:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Amanda Knox

Please make a sub-page off your talk page so we can mark-up an article for Amanda Knox. Once we have the article in good order, you can create the Knox page and load our content into in all at once. The key to preserving a good wiki, is to create content which appeals to the readers, meets wiki standards and moots the deletionists who clamor for deletion. A rich, detailed article; launched as such on day one, would (I think) prevent people like Pablo from naysaying an Amanda Knox article page any further. 98.118.62.140 (talk) 19:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

How do I do this?LedRush (talk) 02:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Just like you did your other sub-pages (User:LedRush/Bucknell Pong, etc).TMCk (talk) 03:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I didn't do that.LedRush (talk) 04:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

First, thank you TMC for stalking me...I didn't know that the Bucknell Pong article was still around. Second, I think I've set up a sub page at User:LedRush/Amanda Knox.LedRush (talk) 05:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, LedRush. You have new messages at MLauba's talk page.
Message added 20:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Amanda Knox again

Not commenting on whether closing the discussion was right or wrong, but - face it - it is a pointless discussion. It can either go on forever with "yes it is", "no it isn't" or, if you are wildly, wildly optimistic, it can end with "yes it us", "okay I agree but so what?" (i.e. the MOMK talkpage is not a forum which can re-activate the deleted article - you need a deletion review or an RfC for that).

The main issue here seems to me to be that there is scant encylopaedia material from which to create a biography of Knox. Details of her life prior to the murder, beyond on few lines, are simply not encyclopaedic. Details of her life since the murder belong in the existing article. This may differ form other cases where the motivation and background of the criminal has been a matter of undeniable media interest (eg Seung-Hui Cho). You should keep in mind that there have already been a number community discussions about this and there are not any obvious grounds for supposing that the material factors have changed in the meantime. If you feel strongly, though, you should do something about it other than meaningless protesting (IMO) on the talkpage. --FormerIP (talk) 02:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Procedurally, I think that MLauba is an uncivil bully. On the points of an Amanda Knox article, I think you are demonstrably wrong. The amount of information on her is vast, and she could easily support a separate article like countless people who have articles with far less notability and information. However, on the fruitfulness of the discussion on the Meredith Kercher, you are absolutely right, as I have stated before.LedRush (talk) 02:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so if if we can agree that it is fruitless, can we also agree that it is pointless to continue it?

If you really think an Amanda Knox article is viable, then maybe you should try it out on your talkpage. In principle, I would not be against a genuinely encyclopaedic article - but I do think it is not possible. Background details such as "she liked to pick flowers" (as we had in previous proposal) are not valid content. Details about the murder, the trial and media coverage of the trial belong in the existing article, and there would be no validity to a fork that largely duplicates that information. Details about her MySpace, sex-life etc are not appropriate because they were not relevant at her trial and there is a BLP issue because she is currently appealing her sentence and there is the possibility she may be freed. If you know of any info not covered by any of this, then, like I say, please feel free to create (IMO "waste your time with") a userpage draft. --FormerIP (talk) 02:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, we may agree that I'll get no joy out of the discussion on the Amanda Kercher Murder article, we'll have to continue to disagree about everything else. I think that the discussion on that article about Knox is good because that's where the most vocal opponents of a Knox article are, and increasing understanding of the alternate points of view must be a good thing. I also disagree about the content of a potential Knox article on several points. You are right that it doesn't matter that she enjoys picking flowers, but things that have been heavily covered by the media can and should be included in the article. Also, we can add much more detail about her trial and appeals than we can in the Kercher article (because of issues regarding WP:UNDUE. At the end of the day, though, I am reticent to create the article on my sub page because it will take me a long time and I don't believe that [all of] the opponents to the article have the best interests of Wikipedia in mind.LedRush (talk) 02:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

You could always write it offline and paste it into a subpage when you feel it's ready. I think it will be quite a difficult task to create and justify a standalone article (previous attempts by other editors were unsuccessful), but am quite happy to be proved wrong. Actually writing the article would certainly be far preferable to the many, many, previous discussions. pablo 09:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Sub Pages

Create a new sub page like this:

1) Navigate to the page under which you want to create the sub-page. In this instance, the page you want to start on is: User_talk:LedRush

2) Look in your browser navigation field and see the URL which is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LedRush

3) At the end of that URL, append the name of the new page (I've already created a new page for you, it's called Amanda).

After you append the new page name, the URL will look like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LedRush/Amanda

Had I intended to name the new page "cheese" the new URL you want would say http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LedRush/Cheese

4) As soon as you see the URL reading the way you want, hit enter and your browser will try to navigate to that new page

5) However, becase the new page doesn't exist, the wiki will prompt you to enter some information and thereby create the new page.

6) You do not need a "create page" button as the URL method does it for you. It's a recursive process. You call for a page which does not exists and the wiki prompts you to create it.

Click here to go to your new Amanda page

98.118.62.140 (talk) 15:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but I think I already set mine up at User:LedRush/Amanda Knox.LedRush (talk) 15:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy

I think WP:CIVIL and WP:TALK would be good places to start. Without knowing the specific situation, it's hard for me to say for sure what should or should not have been done. I don't claim to be any kind of expert on policies. But I do have a policy of my own, which is pretty much connected with wikipedia policy as far as I know: I almost never mess with another user's talk page edits, unless they're horrible rules violations, such as extreme personal attacks. In general, I figure it's up to admins and/or the targets of those attacks to take action, if they choose to. If an established editor reverts something like that, I would typically check the circumstances; and then ask the user, if I don't understand their actions. I might do likewise with an IP address user, but either way I would check to see if there's already a pattern of abuse and then turn the user over to WP:AIV and let the admins decide what to do, if anything. As far as I know, it's within the rules for both admins and non-admins to revert personal attacks and trolling and such as that. But care should be taken to avoid a talk-page edit-war, plus it's more handy if the "evidence" is still on the page, in case you have turned them in to AIV; and that's why I don't often revert users' comments. Communication is the key. I hope that helps. If you can tell me the specifics, that would help more. But that's up to you. As regards the admin's warning to you, sometimes admins forget that not everyone knows they're an admin. Again, communication is key. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, I assume it's this that started it:[1] I wouldn't have put it back, because although it seems pretty mild on its face, it's still a violation of the "letter of the law" about commenting on users rather than on content, making a charge of bias without presenting any evidence. It's possible that IP has made other contentious and accusatory comments on this controversial page, and maybe the admin had heard enough from that IP. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking that you could call the admin's bluff and take him to ANI over this, but since he was within the letter of the law, I wouldn't count on it getting any good results. In theory, many rules violation can be corrected by non-admins, so although he might have been treating it as an admin action, I could have done it too. In theory. That general kind of topic turns up frequently at ANI, where an admin is accused of "admin abuse", even though the specific action the admin took was one that any editor could take, hence the complaint is dismissed unless the editorial action was against the rules. The threat to block you for it was, in my opinion, an overreaction. He could have issued a "caution" rather than a "warning". But it is within an admin's power to put a stop to what he might see as "disruption". Again, the best thing to do when a scrape arises is to try to investigate and communicate. It's also a good idea to have one or more trusted admins in your circle, as I do, and go to them for advice when something doesn't seem right. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

An RfCU

An RfC/U about AlexCovarrubias (talk · contribs) has been filed - I know you have expressed concerns about his conduct at a previous time and encourage you to participate.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:24, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, LedRush. You have new messages at Talk:Led_Zeppelin#Album_Sales.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

 :)

Judaispriest (talk) 20:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Knox film article

May I ask why you're adding the same citation after each sentence instead of placing it once at the end of the content to be backed up by?TMCk (talk) 14:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Because people were deleting any sentence without a citation. I would rather do what you suggest, but people have such strong opinions and entrenched beliefs, they sometimes take any reason to remove content, no matter how silly. Just look at Ian's continued reverts regarding where the dna was on the knife.LedRush (talk) 14:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Ian's removal looks more like a misunderstanding because he failed to see and read additional pages in the source. Happened to myself before. As for the citations, repeating the same ref makes no difference - Making sure the cited information is indeed available in the citation does. Cheers, TMCk (talk) 14:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I wish I could believe it was a misunderstanding. I explained to him that the material was there. I quoted it on the talk page. I asked him to discuss before any further removals. He was either deliberately obstinate or exceedingly stupid and unwilling to confer before editing. Either one is not helpful to an article.LedRush (talk) 15:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I see. So no AGF? Maybe you reconsider since you just added bogus citations to Wikid's OR edits today. Must have been deliberately by your standards. Think about it.TMCk (talk) 15:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I assumed good faith on the first two edits and the first two explanations I gave him. I assumed good faith when I quoted the actual language and put in on the talk page for him. However, when he made that third reversion despite all the evidence, and despite the fact that I had opened up a dialog on the talk page with direct quotations, it is either bad faith or stupidity/unwillingness to discuss. That is a fact, not an opinion.

Your example may be well intentioned, but I never once reverted when people removed Wikid's OR (I hadn't noticed it until I saw the reverts taking them out). I would hope you would be more careful with your analysis in the future.LedRush (talk) 15:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I thought you might not like your own standards you just set above. Nobody does.TMCk (talk) 15:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you trying to be antagonistic and dense? By my own standards, I would have needed to be warned a couple of times, been given conclusive proof that the edits didn't belong, and have been asked to discuss it on the talk page and still revert 3 times. I reverted 0 times. That's 3 less than 3! No one started any discussions with me. No one gave any proof. I merely looked at the diff and saw that it was right to remove the material. Easy peasy. That's how WP is supposed to work when people aren't either deliberately obstinate or a lethal combo of stupid and unwilling to discuss. LedRush (talk) 16:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

This discussion is becoming senseless. I didn't accuse you of bad faith but of not assuming good faith while apparently you yourself didn't pay the proper attention to either what is in the source or in the article. There is not more and not less to it but you seem to refuse to see any resemblance.TMCk (talk) 16:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

This is absurd. You are merely here to insult and to antagonize. I don't recognize a resemblance because there is none. As I stated above "by my own standards, I would have needed to be warned a couple of times, been given conclusive proof that the edits didn't belong, and have been asked to discuss it on the talk page and still revert 3 times. I reverted 0 times. That's 3 less than 3! No one started any discussions with me. No one gave any proof. I merely looked at the diff and saw that it was right to remove the material. Easy peasy. That's how WP is supposed to work when people aren't either deliberately obstinate or a lethal combo of stupid and unwilling to discuss." In summary, it took zero warnings, zero explanations and zero reverts for me to see my mistake. It took Ian 5 warnings, 5 explanations (including a direct quotation, and 3 reverts to see his mistake (and he ignored repeated calls to discuss the situation). Your attempt to equate the two actions is insulting and illogical.LedRush (talk) 16:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Judaispreist

Just want to you know how delighted I am by the outcome of Judaispriest's report. Revan (talk) 22:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about.LedRush (talk) 00:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm surprised that you don't know, since he made clear that you know each other personally. Maybe he's too ashamed of it. Nevermind, he was busted for sock puppetry by Piriczki after being reported because of foul language, name-calling, and accusing someone of being "a complete waste of oxygen". As you can see here, he futilely hoped the issue to be over and done as soon as possible. But then there was the case of sock puppetry. You can see Piriczki's link here, and Scieberking's meaningless excuse of what had occurred. Here is the Scieberking sock puppet investigation. Apparently he's a stand up wiki user, so I don't know if Judaispriest was one of his puppets he used for relieving some of his abusive needs, but I don't think so. Judaispreist's abusive and sadistic comments backfired - there wasn't really anything you contributed with by being so persistently obstinate in your laddish maneuvers. Revan (talk) 20:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't don't why you'd think we know each other personally; I've never seen him on another article nor have I ever directed comments to him directly. And that you'd like to come here and try and gloat is just pathetic. But then again, you've proven to be an incredibly unintelligent, untrustworthy, and uncivil editor, so it shouldn't surprise me.LedRush (talk) 23:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• I don't remember why your page is on my watchlist, but I took the liberty of removing the latest series of personal attacks directed against you. Revan ltrl is not in a position to write abusive messages to other for a while, and has been requested to stay away from you. MLauba ^(Talk) 01:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Come to think of it, I actually do remember, not that it matters in the least. Happy editing nonetheless. MLauba ^(Talk) 01:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Meucci

For reference: http://hnn.us/articles/802.html LedRush (talk) 01:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism

I see that you are someone who despises vandalism and reverts it with extreme pride. Therefore I assume that you are unaware that the 300 million sales figure in Led Zeppelin's article originated as an unsourced contribution from a known vandal. All sources reporting that figure post-date its first appearance in Led Zeppelin's Wikipedia article. You can research this yourself, but it has already been exhaustively explored here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Led_Zeppelin/Archive_5#Disputed_accuracy_of_worldwide_album_sales 206.216.34.251 (talk) 01:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I see that your infatuation with the 300 million figure in Led Zeppelin's article continues. Therefore, I have a simple request for you. Find out WHERE the known vandal who initially added it to Led Zeppelin's article got it from. Had to come from somewhere, right? Otherwise, it's just vandalism with nothing to back it up. Find a source that predates its entry in the Led Zeppelin article. Any source. I don't even care if it's a reliable source. We can get to that later if you ever find anything, which you won't.

It is obvious to most impartial observers what happened. A vandal made up the 300 million figure and added it to Wikipedia. It remained there for months with no citation and no reverting. Sloppy journalists then used Wikipedia as a source and promulgated the phony sales figure. Now those articles are being used to support the initial vandalism. How you can support this is beyond me. Do you want truth in Led Zeppelin's article, or do you just want whatever makes Led Zeppelin look as awesome as possible? Do you want to be an encyclopedia editor or a fanboy? 206.216.34.251 (talk) 20:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks by Hipocrite

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, you are reminded not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. Hipocrite (talk) 13:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Please provide examples of personal attacks by me. I know you've attacked me before, but that's not the same. Also, it is considered uncivil to template an experienced editor's talk page. If you don't have anything substantive to add, I would ask you not to post here.LedRush (talk) 13:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

this is a blatant personal attack. Hipocrite (talk) 14:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

It is a reminder to discuss edits, not editors. Perhaps I should have been more delicate (I added a more specific reminder to that edit, but I have reminded him several times and he is stepping up his personal attacks. I thought that you had settled down a little yourself, but it seems not. LedRush (talk) 14:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC) Unfounded accusation of meatpuppetry.[2]LedRush (talk) 15:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I have raised this issue at WP:WQA, at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#LedRush.C2.A0.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.29. I should note that my responses to you on your talk page are being deleted by you. Thanks for your efforts. Hipocrite (talk) 14:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Further, I should apologize for using npa-1 which has the insulting "Welcome to Wikipedia." language as opposed to npa-2, which would have avoided the assumption you are a new user. I am honestly surprised, looking at your editing history, that you have been here for years, and I admit that I should have checked that before templating you. For that I apologize. Hipocrite (talk) 14:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Any templating of an established user is generally considered uncivil. Your apology to me contains more personal attacks than it does apologies. Since you've duplicated this discussion on your talk page, and you are here merely to harrass me, I will make all future comments over there and will revert any of your future comments here.LedRush (talk) 16:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Some examples of Hipocrite's personal attacks and uncivil behavior: a detailed attack blaming a world of problems on one editor [3], accusation of grandstanding[4], purposeful misrepresentation of another's position [5], insultig an editor for not making the least bit of sense [6], insulting a specific editor, and others at the same time [7], calling another editor's contributions a "word salad" constitution "grandstanding" [8], says editor is listing random factoids and says "who cares?" 4 times [9], accuses an editor of "bloating Wikipedia and distorting the facts via selective presentation" [10].LedRush (talk) 22:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC) A completely unsubstantiated personal attack by Hipocrite on Wikid77 and me, misrepresenting our positions and edit histories and imploring us not to edit the article any more.[11]LedRush (talk) 13:00, 10 April 2011 (UTC) Calling a floor plan that another editor created crappy in his edit summary (where he tagged the content despite consensus to include)[12]. Calling the work of another editor the work of a "10 year old with MS paint". [13]. Making it seem like I support an edit which I have explicitly told him I do not support[14].LedRush (talk) 18:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Final warning, pers. attack at Kercher article

Your latest attack on me is despicable. Desist or behold the consequenses.(You have about 15 1/2 h left)TMCk (talk) 08:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Could you please let me know to what attack your referring? I honestly have no idea what you're talking about?LedRush (talk) 10:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Wait, April Fool's day...I get it! Well played, sir.LedRush (talk) 11:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

See? I do like you afterall :) TMCk (talk) 11:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Hang in there Rush (though I get the impression you can take care of yourself). TMCk seems to have this thing about attacking those he cannot keep up with in fair argument. PietroLegno (talk) 11:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh come on. Don't stalk me and don't try to take away our newly friendship that just started. That not nice  ;(((( TMCk (talk) 11:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Don't flatter yourself. I am not stalking you. Since you threatened to remove my posts without informing me, I decided I should make sure you were not carrying through with the threat. In the process, I discovered that you have this thing about woofing on other people's talk pages. I wrote to commiserate. My communication was with Rush not with you. I reserve the right to let other users know that they are not the only ones being harassed. Perhaps we would all be better served trying to improve a badly flawed article rather than playing games. PietroLegno (talk) 11:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Now here is your problem: You're way too serious :) TMCk (talk) 12:10, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Pietro, thanks for coming to my defense, but TMCK was just joshing me for April Fools Day, and now, desptite sometimes conflicting views/methods on MoMK, we're best friends! LedRush (talk) 13:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

thanks

Thanks for trying with the Chamber of Commerce section. Congress is investigating some of this, so there may be some harder facts yet revealed. best wishes, Richard Myers (talk) 18:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I still think that there is something that could be said about this incident; maybe when more news about this is released.LedRush (talk) 01:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Courtesy reminder

You're on 4rr. Best, TMCk (talk) 19:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I'm on 2rr and have pledged not to otherise edit the ear-witness stuff until consensus is reached. Could you show me the diffs about which you are talking?LedRush (talk) 19:49, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Not that I intend to report you but sure: [15] [16] [17] [18]. TMCk (talk) 19:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

[EC]I just eyeballed it, and it looks like you reverted 5 times, while I reverted twice. This was a fast look, so some of your reverts may have been reverts of other info.LedRush (talk) 20:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Looking at your diffs, it appears my eyeballing is right. The first two could be considered the same reversion, but I changed the way it was written to address concerns about the source, so I think they are different. The third one deleted reference to the mental illness, which was the only BLP issue raised at the time (and the only valid one). The 4th is completely unrelated, and happens in a completely different part of the article. As a summary, I think there aren't even 2 reverts, but you could argue there were 2. You could even make a bad argument for 3 (but it is really bad). But it is impossible to say it was 4rr.LedRush (talk) 20:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I can't believe it but apparently you've never read wp:3rr. Your reverts all count while mine are BLP exempt.TMCk (talk) 20:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I've read it. Please explain in what universe the 4th diff could possibly count? It's about a different witness, is sourced to multiple articles which state that he said these things himself. It is completely unrelated to the female ear-witness. And your edits might have been exempt if you had actually articulated BLP concerns before editing (declaratory statements in edit summaries don't count) and this exemption is controversial please read wp:3rr.LedRush (talk) 20:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Let me quote from 3:rr "Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert.
And this here is my very first revert where I indicate BLP in my editsummary:"No source. BLP applies"
Anything more?TMCk (talk) 20:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

[EC]Well, you've proven my point about your BLP reverts. Yours were not exempt. You merely made a declarative statement (sometimes, not each time) with no explanation at all.LedRush (talk) 20:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

You're kidding me. All but one of my summaries ("user generated unvetted source by Bruce Fisher.") have the letters B L and P included. you just can't be taken serious, seriously.TMCk (talk) 20:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

My statement above is accurate. Perhaps the parenthetical should read (80% of the time) instead of what it does say.LedRush (talk) 21:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Regarding completely unrelated edits, I must confess I had no idea that was the rule. I've never seen the 3rr enforced this way, and I don't even understand how that could be the rule. I'm glad I know now, though, as I am sure I have breached this several times in the past without anyone even mentioning it.LedRush (talk) 20:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Now it's your turn to show me "declaratory statements" in my editsummaries please.TMCk (talk) 20:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure. [19]. It seems you didn't even discuss your BLP concerns until after your 5th revert.LedRush (talk) 20:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

What the hell are you talking about showing me the dedithistory????????TMCk (talk) 20:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Providing the proof you asked for.LedRush (talk) 21:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Let me reqoute from above:"And this here is my very first revert where I indicate BLP in my editsummary:"No source. BLP applies" TMCk (talk) 20:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Right, you merely make a declarative statement in your edit summary (which is why I showed you the edit history). You didn't actually discuss any potential BLP issues on the talk page. It is controversial to depend on BLP for breaking 3rr, and it seems to do so without discussion would be more controversial.LedRush (talk) 21:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

• If you need more to understand editsummaries you're in the wrong place here on wiki. TMCk (talk) 21:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
• Ah, and don't try to explain me 3rr rules.... lol TMCk (talk) 21:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

[EC]Well, I understand that you are making a declatory statement that something violates BLP. But when there is an active discussion going on, and editors are reacting to those stated concerns, it seems not very helpful at all to stand silent on the sidelines reverting edits that address the concerns on the talk page. And I certainly don't think that your edits would be exempt from 3rr given the circumstances. However, I've already proven that my previous understanding of 3rr was completely wrong, so maybe I'm wrong again.LedRush (talk) 21:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Witness

I'm off to bed. That discussion is one where I found myself stopping and thinking... ouch, I just typed hundreds of words over something that doesn't matter too much. I won't dispute it if you prefer to swap the word "witness" in sentence one for "homeless heroin-addict". :) Is that a reasonable compromise? --Errant ^(chat!) 22:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I do think that the language and placement is important, but because of the contentious nature of the article, and the fact that I have thought that the 3rr meant something different for the last 3 years, I didn't want to revert anything you did (especially as you are a highly reasonable editor amenable to compromise). I think I will make the change, but I will wait to see how certain others chime in.LedRush (talk) 22:54, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

It's hard sometimes to see the wood for the trees on articles like that. Thanks for taking the time to talk about it first. --Errant ^(chat!) 23:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

(re to Led) Your response is wise. Unless something is blatant vandalism or against a standing consensus, restraining oneself to below 3RR is better than skating the edge.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 23:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to bitch about it exactly... or revert etc. But my proposed compromise was to switch witness for homeless heroin-addict in the sentences I had written. Not to revert back to the slightly convoluted original sentences. How much of a problem for you would it be to go back to the following?

Their version of events was contradicted by a homeless heroin-addict who testified that he had seen Knox and Sollecito chatting animatedly on a basketball court around five times, between 9.30 and midnight on the night of the murder. The witness, who has appeared as a witness in a number of murder trials, contradicted his testimony on the time and place he saw Knox and Sellecito several times during the appeals trial.'

My original argment remains... whilst I concede that the drugs/homeless element is definitely pertinent there is no desperate need to establish he is a perrenial witness before we discuss his testimony :) And, in fact, I do feel it is "point pushing" to discredit him so thoroughly before adding his testimony. It's not an issue that will have me re-opening talk page discussions, because it is simply not worth it, but I do think that current content is not the best it could be. Can we compromise? --Errant ^(chat!) 22:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead. I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. I tried to keep your other change, but didn't realize (or remember) that you wanted it to retail your formulation.LedRush (talk) 22:46, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks :) No apologies necessary at all, in fact any apology should be from my side. Frankly, it's nice to be able to compromise with such civility and ease, thanks :) --Errant ^(chat!) 23:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Fri night

Last Fri night I worked my way through the box set with a wee bit of Smirnoffs. I'm probably about to annoy my neighbors with 2112 ...no, wait Counterparts and wee bit of bourbon (Beam)....and not let matters of the wiki bother me...I would hope that for you as well. :) I just missed Rush even though they played in my hometown area. I have seen them many times before and they remain one of my favorite all-time bands...now, if you'll excuse me, I have a stereo that has "11" on the volume.

Sunday night I'm going to see Rush at MSG...7th row center. I've seen them a lot recently, but it is still a thrill every time. Next time you need to piss off your neighbors by turning your volume to 11, I would suggest the new 5.1 mix/Blu-ray of Moving Picture...it's friggin fantastic!LedRush (talk) 01:19, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Mistrial?

You wrote "There was even a mistrial because jurors claimed to look for information and guidance in the bible." What case was this? Just a personal interest. Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 16:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I was inaccurate. The court threw out the sentence and imposed a more lenient one because they consulted the bible on the correct punishment. [20]LedRush (talk) 17:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Ahh, ok. I knew about the Harlan case. Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 17:40, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Is there any reason you would know about the Harlan case? Are you a law student?LedRush (talk) 17:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I've cared about death penalty issues since being forced to sit through a Grand Jury term about 15 years ago. Hipocrite (talk) 18:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, LedRush. You have new messages at Scieberking's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Regards, Scieberking (talk) 15:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Support for Knox and Sollecito RS

Hi LedRush,

I saw your comment about RS. I'm working on it right now, I understand what you're saying. I may have to drop some of the support sites if I can't find a secondary source for them. Thanks Issymo (talk) 17:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed text for addition...

Hi LedRush, with respect to our discussion elsewhere, I'd like to apoloqize if you found my tone condescending, as that was certainly not my intention. And I appreciate that you could have a sense of frustration with the fine line between OR/POV and parroting sources. My involvement with the article is strictly from the standpoint of a relatively experienced Wikipedian who has absolutely no connection to or opinions on the topic, which nevertheless I am familiar with from high-level media sources. I've injected myself because I think that is exactly the kind of editor who can help out, and I picked that particular thread to get started. That said, two areas I'd like to note:

• I do have some concerns with your approach, as it seems to me that you are first choosing what you want to say, then finding sources that will support your chosen wording. That's a little backwards to our preferred approach, which is to investigate the subject and find neutral wording. No biggie though, I'm sure we can work on that at the article talk page and hammer something out. I take your other point and hopefully later today (I am in PDT/UTC-0700) I will propose an alternative wording.
• The other thing I'd like to discuss with you directly is the question of copyright on the one phrase describing the views of the group. In my opinion, it absolutely is a copyvio in the first 3 versions, and still unacceptable in your last proposal. I'm not exactly a wiki-copyright expert but I've had a bit of experience in the area and if I saw that during a copy-cleanup session, I'd remove it without a thought. The reason is that, no matter how much you change the individual words, you've clearly taken a particular turn of phrase and decided to use it no matter what. But someone else wrote that phrase, so it belongs to them, not us (unless we quote it, in which case it doesn't belong to us and we're clear about that). I'd invite you to discuss further this problem to see if we can arrive at a mutual understanding of proper incorporation of external material. It's quite possible that I'm dead wrong, that wouldn't fit with my previous experience, so it's a learning opportunity to me also. If there are other examples of this sort of rewording that you have added to articles in the past, could you point a few out? We can discuss your approach to be sure it's on-track.

So again, sorry if I caused you offence and I hope we can keep discussing the content of the article at that talk page. I've just brought up some issues which I thought would be better placed here. Regards! Franamax (talk) 21:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to respond to me here. Regarding your first point, I don't think that is accurate at all. Generally what happens is that I find a new article on the case and I try to incorporate the info into our article. If it seems like I have what I want to say, it's because I do: I want to say what the article says, without introducing POV and of course, mindful of copyright issues. On your second point, I really can't see it at all. I have experience in copyright law, and, at least in america, the idea that this would be an issue is beyond laughable. Of course, we're worried about WP policy here. My reading of the policy has my proposed text not even remotely an issue as well. The phrase is short, the sentence structure completely different, the vocabulary is completely different, and only the tone remains. This is a no-brainer, to me. Of course, you see things differently. If you can make a new suggestion which stays close to the article, you don't think violates copyright, and which other editors don't believe either deviates from the original either to soften or exacerbate its point, I am more than happy to let you do so.

Again, I really thank you for your response. I was frustrated because I see so much wikilawyering and obstructionism on this article that it prevents the article from getting better and more NPOV. I believe when people raise legitimate concerns about proposed or existing text, they should be working to make the text acceptable, not merely sniping at why it isn't acceptable. I can do this for information that both the "teach the controversy" and "there's no real controversy" camps on the board, but I feel I am one of about 3 editors who takes this approach. This approach also means I take shit from all sides. But I believe it is the right approach to take, both procedurally from a WP policy standpoint and from a common courtesy stand point.LedRush (talk) 22:19, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

WQA from Hipocrite

Notification absent any others. Collect (talk) 00:18, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Notify me if you need comments

Wikid77 here. I just defended your actions at WP:Wikiquette_alerts in this edit. In the future, please feel free to notify me if you wish my opinion, at ANI, or elsewhere; I cannot promise to support any of your particular viewpoints, but I will try to be fair with my comments. Contacting me, directly, will not be a problem of WP:CANVAS because: (1) I have requested notification from you, and (2) I have noted I might not support your future viewpoints. Hence, contacting me would not be improper canvassing as if you knew I would always agree with your opinions (I might not). Thanks for your hard work, and please know that other editors can help settle disputes which people might start against you. -Wikid77 (talk) 19:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Wikid77, I appreciate it.LedRush (talk) 19:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

My tone on the Meredith Kercher talk page

I want to apologize for my tone during the recent conversation regarding Amanda spending the night at Raffaele's. I honestly didn't intend to direct any accusations at you. Wikipedia reports on events as the media reported on the event, meaning if the media gets it wrong, so does Wikipedia. No system is perfect but Wikipedia is honestly not suited for controversial cases like this one. We have the ability to provide actual documentation directly associated with this case but unfortunately those documents are not considered credible to Wikipedia unless they are discussed in the New York Times or on CNN. Having access to the information that I do makes the Wikipedia process very frustrating. Of course my opinion about Wikipedia means nothing. I will do my best to keep a level tone. You have been more than fair with your work on the article. I will post a note stating that I was out of line on the talk page. BruceFisher (talk) 00:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much Bruce. I understand that you have strong opinions on this matter and I will always endeavor to take your opinions seriously, even when I don't agree with them.LedRush (talk) 03:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Notice of intent to take article to WP:ANI

Because of continued resistance to expanding the details in the Kercher article, and numerous users being frustrated, I am planning to take the article to the WP:ANI noticeboard to see what can be done. Your username will probably be mentioned, so I thought to ask, now, if you had time for this soon. Without revealing any of your personal plans, is there a "best time" for such a discussion, such as starting on a Thursday, but not on a Monday or such? In my experience, talking with some people does no good, because they see discussions as weak resistance to be pushed aside by empty promises of better behavior. Kindness is always taken for weakness, and hence, stronger actions must be used with them. There is an essay of WP:COMPETENCE, which can be used to merely show a person is unable to function, at a productive level (repeating the same off-topic policies) with other users, while not being "proven" to have evil behavior, but rather as causing WP:DISRUPTION (a behavioral guideline) among the other editors trying to improve an article. This message is just a friendly notice, and if you wish to ignore the proposed WP:ANI discussion, then feel free to let this pass. -Wikid77 00:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. As this is Easter weekend coming up, I expect not to be on WP much between Friday (EDT) and Monday. I will be on a lot for the next 40 hours, though, as I am between projects at work.LedRush (talk) 00:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

How about Next Tuesday...after the holiday is over. Easter Monday is a holiday in the US. People are already travelling starting today. This would also give a little more time to see if things calm down. I have been seeing some improvements in how editors are getting on.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 00:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the editing process is getting better. While Monday isn't a real holiday in the US (almost all businesses are open), I don't mind waiting till then. Quite honestly, I don't know how much I will have to contribute to this conversation, but I will try to add whatever I can whenever it happens.LedRush (talk) 00:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm from the important part of the US...North Carolina. :) Trust me, it's a holiday, I grew up with it. Try googling "closed easter monday north carolina" and you'll see that we still observe it. Makes for a nice long weekend to go to the beach. I probably will be on-wiki, fwiw.

I don't think that an ANI thread will result in any action that is expected. I wouldn't mind the Talk page being semi-protected to prevent disruptive IPs like last night, though.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 01:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I've been living and working in NYC for 7 years now...trust me, no one gets this day off from work.[21]LedRush (talk) 02:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Up there, you mean?

I assume you are watching Investigation Discovery...
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 02:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I have some friends in NC...I hope you and yours survived the storms ok.

I just turned to the channel, and the first thing they said was that all the forensic evidence was controversial. If only the others on the board could have heard that months ago.LedRush (talk) 02:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

We've had repeated storms for several weeks with tornadoes which is out-of-the-ordinary but not as bad as this last weekend. Worst on record for us. If anyone I know was hurt, I'm unaware. I have run the chainsaw a couple of times in the last few weeks, though.

That show repeats itself at 1:00am if you have DVR or staying up. It's well done.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 02:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I owe you an apology

I really am sorry that I let Ultimahero drag me into an argument with him that ended up derailing the WQA. Didn't end up being a constructive WQA. However, I don't think the admins are very on the ball in WQA at all right now. There are a lot of reports that simply sit there and are ignored, and that creates a fertile environment for self-important types like Ultimahero to come in. The guy will pick and argument and monopolize a talk page on just about anything. He did it on NFL Rivalries (which I have no part of) and was called out for it. When I used the standard tag that WQA recommends to inform him I opened a WQA on him on your report, he actually took issue with the verbage on it, acting as if I wrote it. The dude would start an argument with a brick wall on whether it is actually made of bricks. If a competent admin had been there to weigh in on your WQA against Revan, I am confident things would have gone differently. You hit the nail on the head - all Ultimahero achieved was to embolden Revan, but in a way that's a good thing. He's been blocked before, and being emboldened will just get him blocked faster. I have seen his type before. An example is Tothwolf, I WQA'd him a year or two ago, and he kept right on arguing and going on the offensive just like Revan did here. In his case the WQA result was he was officially warned (but that's because competent admins got involved early), but still, his attitude was same as Revan's, and not long after I noticed he'd gotten blocked again. Karma works out in the end. Peace. Mmyers1976 (talk) 19:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

You definitely do not owe me an apology. I wanted to respond just as you did, but after one response from Ultimatehero I knew that I wouldn't get anywhere. I felt that I could easily rebut his points (as you did), but that he wouldn't accept them and I would look bad as I was the reporting editor. I really appreciate you going in there and making the common sense arguments that needed to be made, even if it extended the conversation. You're probably right about Revan, but I was hoping that some third party input would help him become a productive member of Wikipedia. Instead, he calls the Admin who blocked him biased, and the neutral third parties who criticize him biased, and the person who he insults is also biased; but all this is ok, in his mind, because a lone editor decided to defend him. Oh well...LedRush (talk) 20:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

What did I say about the admins sucking in WQA right now? Look at the closing admin for the discussion, Floquenbeam. Here he is, an admin, supposedly someone who should exemplify a higher standard of civility and neutrality, and what does he post when he closes it? His edit summary is "good grief" and his explanation that he posts on the page is: "This has become a giant wall of text, consisting mainly of various already-involved people sniping endlessly at one another. It is completely impossible for anyone new to wade thru all this crap and try to resolve this; you're just wasting electrons at this stage. Please go find another page to have your flame war, where you won't disturb the rest of us. I'll offer User talk:Floquenbeam/Boring flamewar if you've got nowhere else to go." All he needed to say was "Stuck: conversation has been derailed and is going nowhere." Instead, he uses his admin position to snarkily grandstand, flex his ego. In the meantime, if he had been doing his job as an admin in the last two days and reigned Revan and Ultimahero in, the conversation wouldn't have gotten to that point in the first place. And yes, it is mostly Ultimahero who was responsible for that. WQA has a purpose to resolve conflicts, and Ultima's didn't help resolve it, he just made it worse, so it doesn't matter whether he was within the letter of the law or not, the proof is in the pudding, his edits were disruptive, no question. A competent admin could have stopped that. Floquenbeam was asleep at the wheel, and woke up in time to make an unconstructive comment that only served his own ego; it certainly didn't serve promoting harmony at Wikipedia. Mmyers1976 (talk) 21:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. Floquenbeam even took the opportunity to insult me when I asked him to rephrase the closing language. Check his talk page. Its not horrible, but it is bad when Admins are supposed to be upholding WP's civility standards, and this is how they act.LedRush (talk) 21:03, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

As you can see, I have no qualms about speaking my mind when I think an admin is offbase. Let him block me; I'll appeal it, and then I would like to see him have to defend the tone of his closing comments to other admins. I'll go months at a time without editing here, so a block isn't going to bother me, but you can bet his adminship means more than that to him. Mmyers1976 (talk) 21:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Guys, please don't talk about me behind my back. I argued the way I did because that's what I believed is right. You certainly don't have to agree with me, but I would appreciate it if I was just dropped as a subject.Ultimahero (talk) 22:24, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Whatever. It didn't say anything here I wouldn't say to your face. You didn't have to read LedRush's talk page. If it bothers you so much, don't. Mmyers1976 (talk) 22:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Sir, I didn't edit those other pages to try and bug you. I argued the position I thought was right. You both disagree, and that's perfectly fine. But I would just like to not be discussed anymore, if you would be kind enough to drop me as a subject.Ultimahero (talk) 22:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

And LedRush and I are not having a conversation for the purposes of antagonizing you, we're just having a two-person conversation that you are choosing to monitor. Mmyers1976 (talk) 22:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

MMyers and I were venting after a particularly frustrating set of events occurred on WQA page, and he was being gracious enough to follow up with me directly. IF you (Ultimahero) wish to inject yourself into this conversation either to disrupt it or to clear your good name, I will not stop you. However, there is nothing inappropriate about this conversation. In fact, it was entirely accurate and appropriate, and served to restore some of my faith in Wikipedia that you had caused me to lose. I must say, though, I appreciate that you have toned down your rhetoric from WQA page to be more civil here.LedRush (talk) 12:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps Ultima is starting to see what you were talking about regarding Revan's behavior. Mmyers1976 (talk) 12:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I would hope he actually started to see it with Revan's rambling, vitriolic diatribe against us here [22].LedRush (talk) 15:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with you "venting". However, there's no denying that I personally (including things such as my motives, general personality, etc) am being discussed. I'm simply asking that you not discuss me personally. (Such as speculating on what my motives are, etc.) As far as my "tone", that is a very difficult thing to gauge over written text. I am not attempting, nor was I attempting, to be uncivil. I am not approving of everything Revan has done, nor am I approving of everything he has continued to do. But even in defending him against those charges (That's what I thought was right, and I know we disagree on this) I have warned him against being confrontational. So I would simply ask that you not talk about me as a person. Thank you.Ultimahero (talk) 17:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The best I can say is that when you are discussed on my talk page, I will endeavor to ensure that it is done in a civil manner. The best way to get us to stop talking about you now would be for you to stop posting here.LedRush (talk) 17:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Looking for feedback on an essay.

Hey, I wrote an essay, and I would be very much interested in your feedback and suggestions/contributions you can offer. It's here. I screwed up and made it an article page, but I've asked an admin to fix that for me. Once it is fixed, the link I just gave you probably won't work, but the shortcut WP:BDDR should. Mmyers1976 (talk) 04:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

For recent behaviour...

LedRush, having looked over recent edits at Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher, and considered their general intent, I'd like to apologise for the antagonistic and sarcastic tone used (especially here, when responding in a rather flippant manner to you). I understand now how the second and third comments that I made to the section didn't really help matters move forward, and could at least have been better worded if not dropped completely. You're right to state that there wasn't really much of an excuse for them, and I'll be the first to admit that at times I can be highly acerbic (and perhaps supercilious) in tone. I regret today's bitterness, and will strive to exercise a bit more self-restraint in these affairs from now on. Once again, apologies. SuperMarioMan 22:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

And also for linking to user talk pages - I see how this is reckless and a bit disruptive. SuperMarioMan 22:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I can't tell you how appreciative I am of your comments. I think that on such a contentious article we all have moments where we are a little more abrasive than we'd otherwise be, and I know that definitely goes for me as well. In general, despite the recent issues with Cody and the AN/I postings and the pushback against them, I really feel like the article and the talk page are both moving in a much more collaborative and constructive direction than in the past. I really believe that interactions like this are a huge part of that. Thank you.LedRush (talk) 22:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

John's personal attacks, incivility and disruptive edits on MoMK

On the other hand, if you can't distinguish telling it like it is from a personal attack, as it seems from this, you might wish to refrain from commenting in the future. Do you honestly think that bemoaning the influence on the page of partisan editors is a personal attack? I appreciate your intentions are good, but you're barking up the wrong tree with that one. --John (talk) 02:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I posted this on his talk page. "I know it can be frustrating as newbies navigate WP policies, but your continued disruptive edits and personal attacks, like this one [23] only make the situation worse. Please try and make constructive comments about edits, and not poison the tone on the page with personal attacks against editors."

On the MoMK talk page, I responded thusly: "I'll be the first to admit that the discussion of the juice here and on AN/I was not very productive. However, saying it's stupid, making jabs at specific editors with the word "Frig" (which was not used in this conversation at all), calling editors partisan and saying that they have crackpot theories would be considered uncivil by just about anyone. Even if these personal attacks aren't particularly horrible, especially for the rough and tumble tone on this page, they're not helpful. However, there are miles of difference between your first post and second. The second makes your point without the unnecessary jabs at others. For this, I thank you."LedRush (talk) 03:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

By retitling the section I posted to, you seem to further mistake what our policies actually say, which only diminishes my respect for you. Please read the policy page I linked to in the message above, and then please explain which section of it you believe my comment at the article talk page contravened. Thank you, --John (talk) 03:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

You reverted my comment on your talk page. Here, I merely reproduced the conversation so I would not lose it (and separated it from a completely different conversation). I've explained my position above, so I don't quite understand your request.LedRush (talk) 03:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

By titling this section "John's personal attacks and disruptive edits on MoMK" you are making an allegation against me. I believe that allegation to be false. I request that you either substantiate the allegation or withdraw it by retitling the section to a more neutral title. --John (talk) 03:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but I've already explained the reasoning above.LedRush (talk) 03:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Please read the policy page I linked to in the message above, and then please explain which section of it you believe my comment at the article talk page contravened. Thank you, --John (talk) 03:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Policy: "Comment on content, not on the contributor."

John: "We need fewer partisan editors seeking to include crackpot theories here, not more."

Policy: "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream. An example could be "you're a train spotter so what would you know about fashion?"

John: "We need fewer partisan editors seeking to include crackpot theories here, not more."

Civility Policy: "Incivility consists of personal attacks, rudeness, disrespectful comments, and aggressive behaviours that disrupt the project and lead to unproductive stress and conflict."

John: "Of course the stupid juice isn't worth including. My question is, why did we need 3666 words of discussion to achieve the consensus that the juice in the "frig" wasn't worth including? We need fewer partisan editors seeking to include crackpot theories here, not more."

Civility Policy: "It is as unacceptable to attack [with personal attacks] a user who has a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or even one who has been subject to disciplinary action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other user. Wikipedia encourages a positive online community: people make mistakes, but they are encouraged to learn from them and change their ways."

John: "Of course the stupid juice isn't worth including. My question is, why did we need 3666 words of discussion to achieve the consensus that the juice in the "frig" wasn't worth including? We need fewer partisan editors seeking to include crackpot theories here, not more."

Civility Policy: "rudeness, insults, name-calling, gross profanity or indecent suggestions;"

John: "Of course the stupid juice isn't worth including. My question is, why did we need 3666 words of discussion to achieve the consensus that the juice in the "frig" wasn't worth including? We need fewer partisan editors seeking to include crackpot theories here, not more."

Civility Policy: "belittling a fellow editor, including the use of judgmental edit summaries or talk-page posts (e.g. "snipped rambling crap", "that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen");"

John: "Of course the stupid juice isn't worth including. My question is, why did we need 3666 words of discussion to achieve the consensus that the juice in the "frig" wasn't worth including? We need fewer partisan editors seeking to include crackpot theories here, not more."

Per above, I have added incivility to the topic heading.LedRush (talk) 04:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

This would be an extremely unusual reading of the NPA policy. I stand by what I said about the article needing fewer partisan editors and fewer crackpot theories; in the context of the short-story length discussion about whether to state that someone drank fruit juice, I think the comment was extremely justified. Nevertheless, I apologize if I have offended with my plain speaking. Maybe you have more patience than I do for the advocacy and external organization that is going on there. Thanks for at least honoring my request to explain your characterization of my edit as a personal attack, even if I disagree with your interpretation of it. I note with disappointment that you have not yet honored my request to retitle this section to a more neutral title. If you wished to set a good example of the sort of courtesy and respect you say you want, you would accede to my request. Otherwise I regard this matter as closed. --John (talk) 04:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how calling a personal attack on specific editors (calling them partisan and accusing them of stupid actions and crackpot theories) is an "extremely unusual reading of the NPA policy". In fact, any other reading of the policy would be unusual.

Also, I guess I see advocacy from both sides, while you choose to see it from one. Furthermore, I don't know if there has been external organization, but I do see signs of internal organization by editors who poison the talk page with sarcasm and insults (as you have done here) and at the same time try to ban editors with opposing points of view. The SPAs with a specific POV are anything but organized, though I do concede they can be quite disruptive.LedRush (talk) 04:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• I don't think that we're on the same page with regard to "frig". It dates back to the floor-plan image, as far as I can see, but in one of the multiple, archived discussions about that subject there is a connection made to "fridge" and "refrigerator". Are you suggesting that John used the expression most recently as some sort of double entendre, attempting to bring out its more offensive meaning (hence concern that it is a "jab")? I'm not quite sure what you mean. To me, it appears to be a perfectly innocuous reference to the refrigerator - nothing more, nothing less. Perhaps John's comment could have come off as a little less exasperated overall, but when it comes to the essence of his arguments, I draw rather similar conclusions, especially about the juice episode - that is my honest opinion. But as I've said, I'll be striving to moderate myself a lot more at that particular page from now on. SuperMarioMan 12:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Just to reiterate the point I made on your talk page, SMM, the issue here is in how and why the term is used. No one else in the conversation was using the term. We know that Wikid77 had included it in his floorplan and that it is supposedly a British slang term and, for that reason, people heavily criticised Wikid77's floor plan for incorporating it and offered some good (and not-so-good) natured teasing for that. So why use the term here at all, when it doesn't seem to add anything to the discussion and wasn't used in this conversation? To me, it is an obvious jab at Wikid77 and the editors who supported his floorplan.LedRush (talk) 14:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I do understand now how the use of quotation marks (which could come across as scare quotes) and the general tone of the comment could have made the word seem like a veiled attack as a result. Thanks for the clarification. SuperMarioMan 14:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

This just sucks

Sorry for all the crap that's happening today. Just freaking unbelievable BS. Ravensfire (talk) 21:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words.

I hope you don't find this too ungracious, but I believe this is why it isn't a good idea to protect and coddle editors like Hipocrite. It made me want to vomit when I read that he left Wikipedia because people were "harassing" him. He has levied dozens of personal attacks against me, started two WQAs which were determined to be mere strategic and made in bad faith, researched me offline, used the info he researched against me in conversation, and then breached Outing policy (whether intentionally or not). This has led to today's activities, yet somehow he is harassed. I know you guys worked cordially together, but his tone and actions are a big part of the problems of today and on the article, and I didn't know how much until yesterday. To be clear, I doubt that he is directly behind these attacks.

Sorry for the venting, I'm in a pissy mood.LedRush (talk) 21:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry about that - you have a perfect right to be. It seems that Hipocrite is not a holder of one or more of the vandal accounts, but this incident definitely leaves me viewing the whole ANI discussion into his editing with a great deal more suspicion and uncertainty now than yesterday. SuperMarioMan 00:37, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Just because....

Sorry to see the mess going on. Your doing a great job..... Please know it is not over looked. :)

Truth Mom has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

--Truth Mom (talk) 22:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

ANI

I'll agree that the thread has outlived it's purpose. I'm concerned that Cody has disregarded the comments expressing concern about his edits. In part, the thread continues because he does some of the behavior that he objects to - sniping. More than one uninvolved editor expressed some worries about his recent edits, and he essentially blew them off. I accept that he believes that there are no problems with his edits, but he needs to accept that totally uninvolved editors have found problems with them. Ignoring that will end up causing problems for him. Read through the thread, removing all posts from everyone involved in MoMK, and see what you end up with. I'm not planning on continuing this any further, no worries on that.

I honestly don't know if there's a good path forward here based on that thread. An option is to totally leave him alone, and use the various project pages if there's a problem (ANI, WQA, EWN). If an edit is objectionable, revert it, start a thread on the talk and explain the concerns then see what happens. A concensus version is then developed on the talk page and only then added back to the article. If the concensus is the edit isn't salvagable or belongs on another page, then that's what happens. Might be a useful approach if things continue and all parties agree to it. Ravensfire (talk) 17:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note and I think you're absolutely right. I'm not blind to the coatracking and IDHT issues that others have brought up on AN/I, I just think that at a certain level rehashing the same grienvances outlives its purpose. I really do think that the best course of action is to disengage from him and proceed with standard BRD procedure. If he reverts the reversion or claims consensus too quickly, I think a friendly (i.e., not accusatory) reminder by someone other than you, Tarc, SMM, TMCK of John would be best (I'm not saying you guys are bad, but merely reflecting that comments by you guys, regardless of how well intentioned, may seem like piling on at this point. If you like, you can post here and I will post on Cody's talk page - everyone already hates me so it shouldn't matter if I get him pissed at me too). If Cody hasn't learned his lessons, other editors on other threads will quickly tire of his editing procedures and new WQAs or AN/Is will pop up, and Cody will be blocked. If he has learned his lessons, something constructive should come out of his sourced suggestions.

The Monster of Florence: A True Story

Uhm, how do you count? I've made only one single reversion of your addition that you reinstated since. You really don't make much sense there in your editsummary.TMCk (talk) 20:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah...you gotta love the non-combative, helpful tone of TMCk. I count starting at one and then adding one each time. I'm sure if you concentrate, you can manage it too.LedRush (talk) 14:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Seems like we'll always misunderstand each other. I call that true love :))
And I'm still sure I reverted you one time only and can't imagine how you come up with a different count. Live is full of mysteries, eh?TMCk (talk) 12:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

The issue is that I reverted someone who made a bold edit, meaning it was time for discussion, not for another revert.LedRush (talk) 12:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Now I see what you meant (and checked the previous history). You could've used an editsummary that made clear that your edit was a reversion already. Will you do that for me next time, pleaaase? Thanks. And maybe you could try to add something to the article to warrant your entry as recommended at the talkpage over there. Cheers, TMCk (talk) 12:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I think my edit was clear, and if not, my revert of your reversion was cyrstal clear. Also, to be clear, I think the mention is already clearly warranted. However, Raven's suggestion to improve the article was a good one. I don't have the book, but can search for articles sometime in the next few days, time permitting.LedRush (talk) 14:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Murder of Meredith Kercher

Hello,

you were the last logged in user on the Murder of Meredith Kercher article. it´s protected in the discussion site and i have no account. so i would you ask to change something in the article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Meredith_Kercher#Arrest_of_Guede :...On 20 November 2007, the German transport police arrested Guede on a train near Mainz, where he was apprehended for travelling without a ticket...

...The Transportpolizei (German for "Transport Police") WAS the transit police of the German Democratic Republic (East Germany) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportpolizei

...Bahnpolizei was the name of the former Railway police of West Germany... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahnpolizei

from there:

In 1992 the railway security mission was transferred from the Bahnpolizei to the Bundesgrenzschutz (Federal Border Guard Force). The BGS had already taken on these duties in 1990 for the territory of the former East Germany, replacing the former East German Transportpolizei. The Bundesgrenzschutz was renamed Bundespolizei (Federal Police) on July 1, 2005, and this force is currently responsible for security and passenger checks on the German railway system.

so it wasn´t the Transport Police who´s arrested him, it was the Federal Police (Bundespolizei). It´s just that the term Transport Polizei is (was) well known for police squads that had trouble with football (soccer) away fans in east germany.

could you please change the term? Thank you. 77.189.185.158 (talk) 22:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I've made the change, though I've reposted your remarks so that others could see the reasoning behing it.LedRush (talk) 22:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

WOW!!! what a pace! And a good lesson for me, about the remarks. Thanks and greetings from germany.77.189.185.158 (talk) 22:32, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks and incivility by User:Tarc

I posted the following on Tarc's talk page. He deleted it and has not acknowledged an issue:

Please do not engage in personal attacks or make mistatements of truth as you do here [24]. You should endeavor to make constructive comments which address people's actual points and opinions.LedRush (talk) 14:54, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Please stop your mischaracterizations and personal attacks, as you did here [25].LedRush (talk) 15:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

LedRush (talk) 15:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Tarc belittling another editor. [26].LedRush (talk) 19:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Try working with more intelligent editors

Hi. Wikid77 here. I think we would be happier spending more time working with other intelligent editors, and less time with the slow crowd. I have noticed your continual efforts to try to make progress on the MoMK article, but I am worried about the frustration levels there. Originally, I had thought that there was some agenda to slant the article, by refusing to allow improvements. However, it is obvious that almost nothing new is allowed into the article, from any view of innocence or guilt. They are simply afraid of new text, and what it might indicate, perhaps because they cannot read at that level of education. You've heard the adage, "Never attribute to malevolence that which can be explained by ignorance." Recently, I noted that the description of the cottage should be clarified to help sight-impaired readers, who cannot clearly view the diagrams or photos. That concept, of having descriptive text read to a blind person, seemed to be totally beyond their comprehension. Other factors support this view: it is widely known that even a 14-year-old school kid is laughing at their remarks on the talk-page, and yet they persist in the childish behaviour, as if they cannot comprehend why a young student would be laughing. They are not so much evil, but rather just way too slow to realize the situation. Meanwhile, numerous other articles about towns and events in Italy need to be expanded, from scholarly sources, because most of the Italian Wikipedia seems to be written by teenagers with limited experience. I recently read that, during the Roman civil war after the death of Julius Caesar, ancient Perugia supported Mark Antony against Octavian, who destroyed much of Perugia in 40 BC, during the conflicts. Such articles, about Perugian history, should be expanded with more detail. At this point, suggestions at Talk:MoMK need to be simplified and explained in more basic language, so that the ideas are easier to understand. Remember: the unfolding events of the Knox/Sollecito retrial will hit all major news outlets, and the text of the MoMK article is relatively insignificant, in comparison with that news coverage. The important issue is that challenged editors learn, some day, about policies WP:LEDE and WP:CONSENSUS, plus forensic evidence, and how some sight-impaired readers struggle to get the text read, despite their limited eyesight. Meanwhile, we can spend some time working with more intelligent editors and avoid the current frustrations. -Wikid77 (talk) 18:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC)