Archives
Things to remember when my topic ban expires
My topic ban on editing political articles ends on 15:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC).
Here are some reminders to myself. Anyone else who wishes to add to this, please feel free to do so - thanks.
1) Don't edit war!
2) Don't edit war!
3) Don't edit war!
4) Don't start crazy Obama related articles, because the consensus has decided that such articles should not be started.
5) Don't edit war!
Grundle2600 (talk) 17:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
- Don't use wnd.com, obamacrimes.com, or random blogs as your sources. Keep WP:WEIGHT in mind when adding information. Good luck when you get back. (But remember that you'll be on a shortish leash.) PhGustaf (talk) 17:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you. I had never heard of obamacrimes.com - but I now see that it is a real website! Grundle2600 (talk) 19:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
This is a test to see what time it is according to wikipedia. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I see I still have 12 minutes until my topic ban expires. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
This is a test to see what time it is. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
My topic ban has expired. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- I suggest you add to your list of things to remember:
- 6) WP:RS
- 7) WP:NOTNEWS
- I cited reliable sources. All of the information that I added is relevant and notable. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Blogs from mainstream news websites are acceptable as reliable sources. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- 8) Wear Sunscreen! - Wikidemon (talk) 17:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Heh heh. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Please take it slow Grundle. If there is a dispute, bring in outside opinions at the relevant noticeboards and once consensus is reached you will have to abide by it. Good luck. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for your advice and kind words. I am not getting into any edit wars. I want to make the articles better. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Please take it slow Grundle. If there is a dispute, bring in outside opinions at the relevant noticeboards and once consensus is reached you will have to abide by it. Good luck. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Heh heh. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Now That You're Back...
You seem to be getting in trouble again very quickly. Here are some suggestions:
- If you're here on a crusade to "reform" the article, just give up. Wikipedia editors don't do crusades. You'll just piss people off and get banned again. Push your agenda on a blog or wherever, not here.
- Limit yourself to one new entry a day, rather than shotgunning with what you've saved up for three months. Let each addition settle down before entering a new one. Else your additions and the inevitable reverts get all mixed up and people lose patience sooner.
- Just as an exercise, make a change or two sourced solely to news, not editorial nor blog, articles from solid media: NYT, CNN, AP, Reuters, the like. Stop cherrypicking cheap shots from right-wing blogs.
- You've been around long enough to understand WP:RS. WP:NOTNEWS, WP:UNDUE, WP:WEIGHT, and the rest of the alphabet soup. Expect little tolerance if you don't act on that understanding.
Good luck. PhGustaf (talk) 20:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Welcome back to Obama editing, and just an additional point which you probably already know but should be emphasized (it was also mentioned in an edit summary). This remedy from the original ArbCom case is still in effect obviously, so given this edit a few hours ago you now cannot revert on Presidency of Barack Obama for one week. Like the general WP:3RR rule, the 1RR per week is a "bright line" you cannot cross but should not be viewed as an "entitlement." That is, you should not be counting down the minutes to the point where you can revert again and then "undo" an edit 10 minutes after one week has passed since your last revert. The whole point of the restriction is obviously to limit edit-warring, and a kind of "slow-burn" edit warring is also a problem.
- Obviously as you know the key is to get consensus for any additions or deletions you are proposing on the article talk page as that makes reverting at all unnecessary. Best of luck. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
"Luck" isn't really needed to stay out of trouble in WP, just an understanding of reasonable writing. Both this change of yours to Charles B. Rangel and this change of yours to Kevin Jennings had some usable parts in them, but were done in blatantly unsuitable ways (creation of unwarranted sections, excessive quoting without useful context, not tracking the source material well, etc.). If you look at my revisions of what you did, you can see the difference between an edit that will stay in an article and an edit that will get kicked out. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Bigtimepeace, thanks for the reminder about the 1 RR restriction. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Wasted Time R, thanks for editing that stuff instead of erasing it. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Grundle, I've filed Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Grundle2600 based on your editing since the end of your topic ban. Please feel free to respond there. Grsz11 23:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- I left a comment. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Voluntary break from editing political articles
Starting right now, I am taking a voluntary break from editing all political articles for the next 96 hours. I am doing this as a gesture of good will. Grundle2600 (talk) 02:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- Grundle, I appreciate your willingness to take a step back. I have withdrawn the arbitration enforcement request. Hopefully though, you understand what caused me to initiate it in the first place. My thoughts are explained there. Let me know if you have any questions, about that, about editing, anything. Have a good day. Grsz11 14:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. And yes, I do understand. You have a good day too! Grundle2600 (talk) 20:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Time's up! Grundle2600 (talk) 20:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
- Welcome back. Thanks for the postcards :) - Wikidemon (talk) 20:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks! Grundle2600 (talk) 20:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Peak oil
Please keep your edits on topic. This edit uses a paper on Hydrogen production as its source. It is not about unconventional petroleum production. 69.127.18.249 (talk) 02:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- On page 4 of the paper it says, "We have developed Green Freedom concepts for evaluation specifically for production of methanol and gasoline." Grundle2600 (talk) 20:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
tea party protests
hi, Grundle. the Christian Science Monitor article you refer to on the talk page doesn't seem to mention the time-lapse video at all. did some other RS claim it was bogus? thanks. Kenatipo (talk) 19:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- Oh wow! They changed it! Originally, it had a reference to some time lapse photography. Now it just has one photo. Grundle2600 (talk) 03:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
- i believe you. they should really document and archive changes they make to their articles. the Daily Mail did the same thing -- their first headline said "up to 2 million" marched on 9/12. then they downgraded it to 1 million and the previous headline just evaporated. Kenatipo (talk) 15:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
- the Christian Science Monitor did the right thing, though. there's nothing fake about the time-lapse video. it's from the Westwood One camera on top of the Willard Hotel at 14th and E Sts, NW, viewable on TrafficLand.com. the original version of the time-lapse video is by YouTube user N37BU6 and Glenn Beck linked it to his website. the camera doesn't always look down Pennsylvania Avenue toward the Capitol as it did on 9-12. i've seen it aimed south down 14th St or focussed on the Jefferson Memorial or on the base of the Washington Monument. NBC Nightly News used video from this camera (showing Penn Ave filled with marchers from 14th St to the Capitol) on their broadcast that evening, just after their reporter Tom Costello says "our people think there were hundreds of thousands of people here today." Kenatipo (talk) 15:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
- It's too bad the police stopped making crowd size estimates. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Gerald Walpin article
Just don't. For your own good, don't try to "game" the system.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Your comment says that I violated my restriction. You are wrong. I am allowed one revert per week, per each Obama related article. I did not violate that restriction. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Since you're spreading your comments around you give me no choice to do the same. As I replied at my talk page. "That is your interpretation. I try to stick to the facts." Best, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- I will comment about this on your talk page. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Political positions of Barack Obama
Which part of this comment do you not understand?The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- My restriction says I have to comment. It doesn't say I need any specific response to my comments. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- No. You have to discuss, not just comment on any reversion of content at Obama related articles (and else, which you already acknowledged at my talk page).The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- And more importantly, you need consensus to make contentious edits. Since you have none (in fact quite the opposite, your proposals have met with widespread disagreement), your unilateral changes to the article are considered edit-warring (of the "slow-burn" variety). Remember, other editors do not need to convince you why you shouldn't add something. You need to convince other editors why you should add it. --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Magnificent Clean-keeper, there is an extensive discussion, with multiple participants, here. Newross said the quote was taken out of context. I asked him, multiple times, what the actual meaning of the quote was. But he never answered. The source, Politico, is a legitimate source. I have addressed every concern that was raised over the quote. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Whether you agree with it or not, you have no consensus to edit in the way you did. --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Loonymonkey, when you erased the quote, you commented that the quote was "ridiculously misleading." But here on the article's talk page, Newross said the quote was taken out of context. I asked him, multiple times, what the actual meaning of the quote was. But he never answered. Your comment that the quote is "ridiculously misleading" is the same as Newross's comment that the quote was out of context. Netiher of you has explained how the quote was out of context, or "ridiculously misleading." The text of the quote was published by Politico, a reliable source. It's a verifiable fact that Obama said that quote. It should be put back in the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- One more time: You need to discuss content reversions (and this was in there before) and not just "comment on it". Do you understand the difference? If not I, myself or someone else might be willing to waste some time explaining it to you. I thought you do understand the difference when I mentioned it above. Was I wrong?The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- I did discuss it, quite a bit, for quite some time, with other editors, right here. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Oops!
With this edit and this edit it's possible that I may have reverted the same Obama related article twice in a week, in violation of my restriction. The original objection to the material that I added was that it was synthesis. So I thought that if I added the two things into separate sections of the article, there was no possibility that it could be synthesis. Also, I didn't check to see when my last revert was. As a gesture of good will, I will avoid editing that article for the rest of October 2009, based on the standard time that's kept in England. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Grundle. Oops doesn't do it and wp:AGF is exhausted in your case. What you need to do is obey the ArbCom decision by all means.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with you that Oops doesn't undo my mistake. But that's what it was - a mistake. I did not mean to violate the ruling. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Grundle. It is so easy not to make any editing mistakes as you did just today. Check (your and) the article's page edit history and you'll find out what took me seconds. If you don't do so, there will be no excuse anymore and one or more editors will report it to the appropriate board (and you won't be in the position to blame them if they do so).The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with you that I should have checked. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Grundle. It is so easy not to make any editing mistakes as you did just today. Check (your and) the article's page edit history and you'll find out what took me seconds. If you don't do so, there will be no excuse anymore and one or more editors will report it to the appropriate board (and you won't be in the position to blame them if they do so).The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Please keep on checking.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- OK. I will keep checking. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
After ec: I meant "start and keep on checking"; But you get the basis of my thoughs, I guess.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, right. Look - there is one thing that we both agree on, and that's that I don't want to get blocked or banned or restricted again. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- Right, and besides that, if in doubt (regarding edits), ask Wikidemon who seems to "love you" :)) S/he is a pretty good editor you can ask for advise (on or off Wiki).The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- Wikidemon seems very fair and reasonable. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- Right, and besides that, if in doubt (regarding edits), ask Wikidemon who seems to "love you" :)) S/he is a pretty good editor you can ask for advise (on or off Wiki).The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- Besides what I mentioned above, yes, I agree.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Earth attacks
I read an article in today's paper about the missile we're sending to the moon. Should there be a moon attack or moon missile attack article? I wonder if there is an article on this subject and what the actual name is...?
I don't think any creatures living in crater Cabeus are going to be pleased (and apparently they haven't seen the sun in billions of years). Hopefully they won't fire anything back.
Space dust is supposed to show up for about 60 seconds on Friday. Keep an eye out. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for telling me. There's already an article about it - LCROSS. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
That Huge Edit
You know better than that, after all this time. Many, including myself, have been patient with you, but that patience is wearing thin. PhGustaf (talk) 23:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- I discussed my proposed changes extensively on the talk page before I made them. The article was horribly out of date, and needed multiple updates. If I had made several small consecutive edits instead of one large edit, how would that have been any different? Grundle2600 (talk) 01:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- You didn't get anything close to consensus on any of them. My edit summary of "nope" was more polite than the "same old shit" I considered. The lapse of your topic ban doesn't give you license to recycle all the stuff that got you banned in the first place. I have tried to give you helpful advice (and wikidemon has been a wikisaint), but patience does run out. PhGustaf (talk) 03:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- There was consensus to have a single sentence about Van Jones resigning after it was revealed that he was a self described "communist" who blamed the 9-11 attacks on the U.S. government. Please explain why you think the article should mention Obama's actions against offshore drilling, but not his actions in favor of offshore drilling. Also please explain why you think citing one of those things without simultaneously citing the other does not violate NPOV, which states, "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors." How is it not noteworthy that Obama's choice to head the "Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools" has an extensive history of illegal drug use, and avoided reporting the statutory rape of a 15 year old student? If there's going to be a section on Obama's claims of transparency, why shouldn't the section mention cases where Obama was heavily non-transparent? How is Obama's nationalization of General Motors, and firing of its CEO, not notable? How is the questioning of the constitutionality of Obama's czars by two different Senators from Obama's own party not relevant to the section on those czars? Grundle2600 (talk) 10:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- You didn't get anything close to consensus on any of them. My edit summary of "nope" was more polite than the "same old shit" I considered. The lapse of your topic ban doesn't give you license to recycle all the stuff that got you banned in the first place. I have tried to give you helpful advice (and wikidemon has been a wikisaint), but patience does run out. PhGustaf (talk) 03:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Trolling
I cannot honestly believe that this [1] was a good faith edit intended to improve Wikipedia as opposed to vandalism ot trolling. Please don't. The article has been discussed at length on the talk page [2] as I am sure you are aware. --BozMo talk 11:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- The BBC says that global warming ended in 1998. The BBC is a highly reliable source. Oh, sure, the computer models disagree with the BBC. But the BBC info is based on real world temperature measurements, whereas the computer models are based on someone's imagination. Grundle2600 (talk) 11:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- No, it does not. You have had one polite request now this is a serious warning. Do that again and you will get blocked. That exact report cited has been discussed at considerable length on the talk page of the article [3]. You are causing trouble with no good intention --BozMo talk 11:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Or just stick to editing politics articles for which BBC is a reliable source :) Count Iblis (talk) 13:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Arbitration ammendment request.
Based on your behavior recently at Presidency of Barack Obama, I have filed a request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment to deal with the tendentious, WP:POINT-making violation seen in this edit: [4]. --Jayron32 03:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- I have responded there. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Taken to ANI. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Presidency of Barack Obama article; (but also others)
So what are you going to do now? Edit-war and reinstate those rejected edits again a third time (while of course waiting a week before doing so to comply with your ArbCom restrictions), or will you at least try to really discuss those edits and hold yourself back if they are (again/still) rejected? Remember what user:Bigtimepeace said above[5]? Best, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- I added the info because no one answered my questions on the talk page for the previous week, and because saying "nope" is not a legitimate reason to erase the content. Also, NPOV states, "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors." Grundle2600 (talk) 01:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Oh gosh. Same old answer that just doesn't fit.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 15:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Ron Paul article('s)
Assuming that it is true that you're a Ron Paul "fan" and voted for him in the last election [you said this a while ago on several occasions], I'm wondering why you didn't edited his article ever. Why not? If true, you surely know plenty about him and working on his WP entry certainly could add to the article and your reputation in a positive way, I guess.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 16:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- That is an excellent question. I did write Ron Paul in for President last November. I agree with him on most issues, with the biggest difference being that I favor universal health care and he opposes it. Your question is a very good one, and I don't know if I have an answer for it. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Well, well, well. That was the most honest answer I did get from you, ever. Thanks. The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- You're welcome. And thanks. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- You're welcome too, but if you ever have a comprehensive answer please let me know ;) . Best, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Some advise that you won't take but I'll give it to you anyways...
Grundle. I (still) think you're mostly a good faith editor who just doesn't understand our policies and guidelines even so you're here for a very long time but as long as you don't "get" the bases of how it works you're on the "loosing string". I don't think you will ever understand and be able to contribute in a way to improve WP to really "make it better". I think I've made my point clear on my talk page a little while ago (and even so I wasn't very polite then, for which I apologize, it was the truth as far as I saw it and are still seeing it). Cut out repeating your point endlessly as it does only work against you. You should rather start thinking about what you might have done wrong or presented in a bad way. Don't go on with thinking that you're right and therefore everyone else must be wrong. You're "fighting" against alleged bias with bias; That won't work. Best, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for your advice. I very strongly disagree with your claim that I have never made the encyclopedia better. I have edited many, many non-Obama related articles, including many political articles, as well as many articles on science, technology, and pop culture, where there was never any substantial controversy over my edits. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Grundle, don't get me wrong. I was talking about politics related articles (especially Obama related ones but not only). I've never said (and can't even imagine to say such in the future) that you're not an helpful editor on non-politics-related pages. I've edited some of your edits in the past on such pages. To clarify, you made some useful edits to this encyclopedia on articles that are not related to any politics and political views.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for clarifying that. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Grundle, don't get me wrong. I was talking about politics related articles (especially Obama related ones but not only). I've never said (and can't even imagine to say such in the future) that you're not an helpful editor on non-politics-related pages. I've edited some of your edits in the past on such pages. To clarify, you made some useful edits to this encyclopedia on articles that are not related to any politics and political views.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Topic ban
I regret to inform you, but, per consensus established here, you are now subject to the below terms.
Grundle2600 is subject to an indefinite topic ban - he is prohibited from editing any pages relating to US politics or politicians. The ban will be enforced by escalating blocks.
As an uninvolved administrator, I remind you that the ban is binding, and violating the terms will result in escalating blocks. However, you're still free to edit other areas of the encyclopedia, and I encourage you to do so - you're certainly a productive editor, and it would sadden me (as I'm sure it would others) if you were to leave the project.
Also, if you'd like, I could be at your disposal to mentor you. I'd love to help out, but only with your permission.
I hope to talk to you in the future, Master of Puppets 08:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for telling me. And yes, you have my permission to offer me advice any time you want - thanks. Grundle2600 (talk) 11:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)