ThinkEnemies (talk | contribs) removed, editor Nomoskedasticity is advised to stay off this talk page. He/she has serious personal issues with me. Why?.. I wish I knew, probably typical POV pushers syndrome. |
DangerousPanda (talk | contribs) →Blocked: why? |
||
Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
:I should point out that the other editor was blocked and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABigK_HeX&action=historysubmit&diff=367614519&oldid=367609489 unblocked] for this "''Clear edit-warring''". Is my edit-warring somehow clearer, as per contributions? Also, I was not warned, and still don't know if I violated 3RR. I showed great restraint in reporting the warring editor. [[User:ThinkEnemies|<big color="#FF0000">†'''''TE'''''†</big>]]<u>[[User talk:ThinkEnemies|<small color="black">'''Talk'''</small>]]</u> 16:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC) |
:I should point out that the other editor was blocked and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABigK_HeX&action=historysubmit&diff=367614519&oldid=367609489 unblocked] for this "''Clear edit-warring''". Is my edit-warring somehow clearer, as per contributions? Also, I was not warned, and still don't know if I violated 3RR. I showed great restraint in reporting the warring editor. [[User:ThinkEnemies|<big color="#FF0000">†'''''TE'''''†</big>]]<u>[[User talk:ThinkEnemies|<small color="black">'''Talk'''</small>]]</u> 16:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC) |
||
::The sad thing is that I actually expected a response from you. Stupid me. [[User:ThinkEnemies|<big color="#FF0000">†'''''TE'''''†</big>]]<u>[[User talk:ThinkEnemies|<small color="black">'''Talk'''</small>]]</u> 16:16, 12 June 2010 (UTC) |
::The sad thing is that I actually expected a response from you. Stupid me. [[User:ThinkEnemies|<big color="#FF0000">†'''''TE'''''†</big>]]<u>[[User talk:ThinkEnemies|<small color="black">'''Talk'''</small>]]</u> 16:16, 12 June 2010 (UTC) |
||
::: Why? Admins typically don't watchlist a declined unblock - if I had actually asked a question, I would have watched for your reply. However, just to let you know, I did leave a message for the admin who unblocked the other party - even though [[WP:NOTTHEM]] applies. ([[User talk:Bwilkins|<font style="font-variant:small-caps">talk→</font>]]<span style="border:1px solid black;">''' [[User:Bwilkins|BWilkins]] '''</span>[[Special:Contributions/Bwilkins|<font style="font-variant:small-caps">←track</font>]]) 18:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC) |
|||
== Latest proposal to UW study == |
== Latest proposal to UW study == |
Revision as of 18:46, 12 June 2010
Please bear with me, my browser is on the fritz. I hope it's something easily fixed, probably not with my luck, though.
Welcome to my talk page, go Cubbies, da Bears and da Bulls! You must be thinking... what about the Blackhawks? Hockey is the only sport I didn't play growing up, never was good at skating or rollerblading. Apologies if I have somehow offended you during discussions. I am rather blunt in real life, sometimes my wikipersona follows suit. Really, nothing personal. Please feel free to post a message below. I'll be happy to respond at my earliest convenience (which may be 30 seconds later, don't freak out).
locked
Hi TE, it was good that you asked the admin to protect the page. Always a good idea for that page to go into chill mode for a week or two.Malke2010 16:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry for the late response, I didn't see this until yesterday. I was wagging my finger at the article being fully protected again when EyeSerene dropped it down to semi. BigK already said it was probably a good thing and I was in the same boat. It really hasn't helped that much in finding consensus, but at least the article and editors got some relief. †TE†Talk 18:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
page arrangement
TE, please change it back. These are all criticisms of the tea party movement. They are not parts of the tea party movement. Thanks.Malke2010 18:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- I don't understand how Claims of bias in media coverage is Criticism of the movement. There is a quote using the terms "teabagger" and "teabagging." Is this where you find the criticism of the Tea Party movement? If so, remove it to talk. †TE†Talk 18:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- Media bias is criticism. The comments by the media personalities are either supportive or critical. It's outside perceptions. It's not bias the tea party invented. It's criticism. Please put it back there. Thanks.Malke2010 18:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- I disagree. It's criticism of how the media reported the Tea Parties, be it the perceived dismissive and mocking attitude of MSNBC, or the perceived promoting and propping up of Fox News. †TE†Talk 19:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- It isn't something generated by the tea party movement. It's a controversy. Perhaps you could rename the section, "Controversy," since I believe, at one time, it was called that and it included the media bias claims.Malke2010 20:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- And you just called it 'criticism.' Exactly right. It's criticism. That's why it was in the criticism section.Malke2010 20:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- I don't just take any sort of criticism of anything or anyone and put it in a criticism section at the bottom of an article. See Wikipedia:Criticism, please. Thanks in advance. †TE†Talk 20:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- I saw your comment on Sowell and I disagree. The Sowell comment is balancing the claims by the CBC which have to date remain unfounded. I've replied on the talk page.Malke2010 20:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- And you just called it 'criticism.' Exactly right. It's criticism. That's why it was in the criticism section.Malke2010 20:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- It isn't something generated by the tea party movement. It's a controversy. Perhaps you could rename the section, "Controversy," since I believe, at one time, it was called that and it included the media bias claims.Malke2010 20:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- I disagree. It's criticism of how the media reported the Tea Parties, be it the perceived dismissive and mocking attitude of MSNBC, or the perceived promoting and propping up of Fox News. †TE†Talk 19:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- Media bias is criticism. The comments by the media personalities are either supportive or critical. It's outside perceptions. It's not bias the tea party invented. It's criticism. Please put it back there. Thanks.Malke2010 18:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Blocked
ThinkEnemies (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I did not edit war after reporting the user for violation of 3RR. The user added tags to the content disputed here, and here. The user then indicated WP:POINT in their 4th revert by removing my text from the source they deemed WP:OR and adding their own preferred text from that same source. They followed that here. I tried to avoid a spectacle at the AN/3RR and kept quiet. After the administrator closed it rather quickly, I asked how to proceed and what to do with the warring editor's 4th revert. While following up on the on the content noticeboard, I received further indication that the warring editor made that revert to make a POINT, more WP:GAME. I then changed it back to the warring editor's version before their 4th revert, but after they properly tagged the content being disputed. This was not and act of edit warring, I did not go back to my version, I went back to their (tagged) version prior to their 4th revert and most provocative edits here. Sorry if this is large and/or hard to read. This is my first unblock request. †TE†Talk 15:48, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Clear edit-warring as per contributions. Please read WP:GAB should you ever need to request unblock in the future. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:56, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- I should point out that the other editor was blocked and unblocked for this "Clear edit-warring". Is my edit-warring somehow clearer, as per contributions? Also, I was not warned, and still don't know if I violated 3RR. I showed great restraint in reporting the warring editor. †TE†Talk 16:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- The sad thing is that I actually expected a response from you. Stupid me. †TE†Talk 16:16, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- Why? Admins typically don't watchlist a declined unblock - if I had actually asked a question, I would have watched for your reply. However, just to let you know, I did leave a message for the admin who unblocked the other party - even though WP:NOTTHEM applies. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- The sad thing is that I actually expected a response from you. Stupid me. †TE†Talk 16:16, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Latest proposal to UW study
- In 2010, Professor Christopher Parker conducted a multi-state survey at the University of Washington Institute for the Study of Ethnicity, Race & Sexuality. He concluded that: "The Tea Party is not just about politics and size of government. The data suggests it may also be about race." After presenting questions typically used to gauge racial hostility, the study found Tea Party supporters to be more racially resentful than the rest of the population as surveyed.[1] The survey states that "even as we account for conservatism and partisanship, support for the Tea Party remains a valid predictor of racial resentment. We're not saying that ideology isn't important, because it is: as people become more conservative, it increases by 23 percent the chance that they're racially resentful [...] Even so, support for the Tea Party makes one 25 percent more likely to be racially resentful than those who don't support the Tea Party.[2] James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal argued that Parker was imputing his own emotional reactions to the questions. He opined, "it's possible that agreement with a statement like 'Blacks should do the same without special favors' reflects a resentful spirit, but it could also reflect a respectful one--a confidence that blacks are as capable as anyone else."[3]
- Just in case anyone wants to tweak it or offer feedback with my potential participation. Currently, it appears my abilities are somewhat limited. Regarding the proposal, I have heard yelps of OR and SYN from an editor, but no compelling explanation as to why. Seems to be one of those don't want it, don't like it, and will fight it situations. †TE†Talk 14:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)