User talk:Weegeerunner/Archive 2

Message

I have been asked by the person featured in the article to handle the erroneous information on his page. I have spent two das rewriting the information, not from a biased viewpoint but from a "truthful" viewpoint. For example, the original article stated that this person had been guilty of racial discrimination and in my rewrite I deleted this because it is FALSE. I added the reference that shows no charges were ever filed for racial discrimination. In addition, I added articles, and magazine and newspaper articles that showed the more positive tone to the biography of the person I am editing. Why would you want to keep the negative information if in my rewrites I am changing the wording and asking for those items that are clearly editorial commentaries to be removed. A person should have the right to have his portrait painted in a favorable manner, especially when he has been targeted to just the opposite.

I spent two days so far on correcting this information, as I stating adding the necessary references to support my edits and rewrites. If we are to be fair to the subject then reverting back to an original article that clearly is distorting the truth and including false information is not professional at all. This is my first attempt at trying to correct a wrong on behalf of my client and having to go back and forth and rewrite over edits and have you revert it back to the original because of personal opinions is really not fair to the person being attacked by this article. If you want to check the references with the rewites you can clearly see why all of this is being made.

You said that my rewrites were not neutral. However as this rule states "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. Remove material only where you have a good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage. The sections below offer specific guidance on common problems."

This is exactly what I was doing, taking the NEGATIVE slant off of the article and having FALSE information removed and rewriting the content to reflect a more favorable truth.

Thank you for your reconsideration of my edits. And if we have to go line by line to explain each change than I have no problem doing so. Any of the changes made were made to support the character of the person in the article. It is not personal.Genesis20 78 (talk) 22:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Take it to the talk page, and were your sources more reliable? And wikipedia operates on a "neutral point of view" If something negative is notable, it will be in the article. I'm sure that "right" isn't in the wikipedia guidelines. Weegeerunner (talk) 22:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

The infornmation was backed by reliable sources, make sure your sources are more reliable before you change, and take this to the talk page, not my user page. Weegeerunner (talk) 22:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Message

Why do you keep tagging the OUTDrejas page for deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Outdrejas (talk • contribs) 20:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Because it is not notable. Contest the deletion instead of removing the tag. Weegeerunner (talk) 20:38, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I have contested the deletion. Why do you say it isn't notable?Outdrejas (talk) 20:40, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

No reliable sources to state that notability. Weegeerunner (talk) 20:41, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Outdrejas: Contesting the deletion doesn't entitle you to remove the speedy deletion notice. It says on the template that the author of the page may not remove the tag, under any circumstances. It is up to someone else to decide whether the tag can be removed, not the author. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 20:43, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The user has been blocked now. Weegeerunner (talk) 20:45, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Message 2

Hey man, (not even sure if this is how I am supposed to ask you something) but you dinged me for a synopsis of Ondi Timoner's new film... I mean... It was a pretty generic synopsis and not advertising at all, and I was wondering what you thought was an advertisement about it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.84.51.93 (talk) 01:16, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Seriously dude?! now you are claiming copyright on it, what are you talking about... I took the synopsis for the film, written by my company and tried to add it to the page, and took out a few words and a few lines so it sounds a little less glowing about Ondi, and you still get it taken out... and you wont answer my questions on here about what I can do to correct it? What is your problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.84.51.93 (talk) 23:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Write your own synopsis. Weegeerunner (talk) 00:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

That is our own synopsis... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.84.51.93 (talk) 00:37, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Write an original one, we can't use it, even if the original creators of the text give the ok. It's policy. Weegeerunner (talk) 04:51, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Message 3

Why are you precluding philosophical analyses of trypophobia? An excerpt of the dissertation was published in Sou'wester and by an independent press. This phobia is terra incognita. Whether or not philosophy is "relevant" is part of an ongoing discourse, not something to be dismissed before the fact. The article, as it stands now, is lopsided. One scientific study is cited ad nauseum. The philosophic anaysis is taking issue with it on methodological grounds. How is this not relevant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.171.130.166 (talk) 03:50, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Take it to the talk page, we keep the article at the last version whenever something is discussed. Weegeerunner (talk) 04:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Video Game Review Templates

We have already opened discussion on this matter in the WikiProject talk page, see here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television#Video_game_review_template_being_used_on_Television_articles. No changes should be made until this is resolved. - Drywater2k (talk) 17:30, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Got it. Weegeerunner (talk) 17:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

CSD

The article you CSD'd is now a redirect to Careers 360 (Magazine). Cheers -- Aronzak (talk) 20:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh, alright. Weegeerunner (talk) 20:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

PARIS VIOLENCE - slander

Hello, I am the foundator and main member of the french band Paris Violence. We have been victims since more than one year of false accusations and slanders which are totally illegal lies coming now to be brought before the courts. We had a long struggle on the french Wikipedia page, with vandalism on our page putting again every hour the same slanderous accusations that appear on the "controversy" section on the english page. French Wikipedia moderators recognized it was an attempt to my person and my work without any real elements, only motivated by malveillance and jealousy. So the french page has been secured for some monthes and is clean again now. I'm sad to see that insults and abuse still pollute the english page. Please delete this section or allow me too. Best regards, Flav parisviolence@laposte.net — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orlik8 (talk • contribs) 22:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Let's not forget WP:AFG Weegeerunner (talk) 22:43, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

What do you exactly mean? My good faith? Wikipedia France recognize good faith was on my side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orlik8 (talk • contribs) 22:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Don't assume I m trying to insult you. Weegeerunner (talk) 01:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Gamergate is under special sanctions due to disruptive trolling

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Also note, the article is under a 1 revert limit. See the talk page and feel free to join in the endless discussions about how we should misrepresent the sources.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I cited WP:UNDUE, how is that misrepresenting the sources? Weegeerunner (talk) 01:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

April 2015

Hi Weegeerunner. I undid the revisions you made to the page Chandler Bats, because my justification for making them was that they were incorrectly edited by another user. I created the page and talked with the user who edited it, and we determined that his editing was unjustified and just plain wrong. So, the revisions I just made were reconstructive after that users destruction. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougs35 (talk • contribs) 23:42, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Alright. Weegeerunner (talk) 23:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Your revert of Chuck Yeager

Seeing as you must revert, I suggest that you fix the infobox yourself. "----House" does not look like a surname to me!

"Dickhouse" is not a fix. Weegeerunner (talk) 17:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

If you take a look at the body text you'll see that it is either so or the body text is also incorrect. Unfortunately there is no citation for his wife's maiden name! But the entry in the infobox is obviously incorrect! TINYMARK 06:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

-That was me, by the way ;-) TINYMARK 17:18, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Maybe next time you could look at the changes made - for plausibility - instead of simply reverting. What you reverted was actually a revert of an earlier edit. Switch on brain - then revert. And most certainly think twice before giving a warning!

I see below that you seem to have some problems with the correct Wikipedia behaviour. Lack of citation is not a reason for a revert. Simple use of the "citation needed" template suffices. Then, after one month or so, you may revert the text. TINYMARK 06:53, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Message 4

Why did you delete my birthday ??

Because it is not notable. Weegeerunner (talk) 17:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Message 5

[User:Sfinley1952|Sfinley1952]] (talk) 19:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC)Stephen F Finley I have posted changes to the page for RALPH EUGENE MEATYARD's Life and Career: house's famous name and address NOTED ELSEWHERE also on Wikipedia, parents' names, name and YOB for his brother, marriage year, wife's nickname, names and YOB for his two other children. I had first put our families' genealogy (his mother's and my paternal grandmother's) and was denied for insufficient sources, but I realize why that is unacceptable. So I added that I was Meatyard second cousin and my father was his first cousin, also unacceptable (I somewhat understand, but not really). So for the last time, I put that through "several interviews with my Great Aunt Ruth Lentz Meatyard, his mother." BTW born in 1902, Ruth Meatyard Ward (she remarried) died at the age of 101 in 2004. THIS SOURCE MUST BE ACCEPTABLE TO YOU AND WIKIPEDIA! Who would know more about his life/biography than his own mother?! Please reconsider my submitted changes. Thank you. Stephen F. Finley, second cousin of Ralph Eugene Meatyard, yes THAT Meatyard, the photographer, I should know! P.S.--I have our complete paternal family tree, including the Meatyards, on FamilySearch.org. Do you want access to it as proof? I'd be glad to give you the password as long as you make no changes to all the work I have done.

I reverted your edit because it was unsorced. You need to cite a source. Weegeerunner (talk) 20:53, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

In like you!

As per WP:OWNTALK, Iaritmioawp advised me, "users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages." You are apparently unfamiliar with this behavioral guideline. If you continue disrupting my own talk page affairs I will contact an administrator and let him/her deal with your revert war. You are not here with higher edit/admin rights in wikipedia to lecture me:WP:EQ And you are currently not fighting vandalism: WP:DR Please abstain from WP:EW Everything is fine, thank you! --Miraclexix (talk) 00:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	You are a diplomacy genius with a good potential to climb higher and be one of the greatest one day! It is always a pleasure to have issues with you! Miraclexix (talk) 11:44, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	You are one oft the best! You find the worst and intimidating vandalism, where everybody else would not have found it! Kudos to you! And thank you so much for your most fruitful duties, extremely administrable encroachments and highly unlimited endeavors! Miraclexix (talk) 11:51, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Raymond Coxon

No, I am not accepting those tags - they are completely inappropriate - the lead neatly summarises the arc of his career and the article is too short to be split into further sections. Please remove them forthwith. Oh, and by the way you can spare me your sarky Welcome to WP drivel as well. 14GTR (talk) 21:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

First off, let's take it to the talk page before we make any changes. And second off, I didn't make the templates, I was not being sarcastic. It's a template. Don't accuse me of uncivilly for templates I didn't make. Weegeerunner (talk) 21:38, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

_It is not good to repel positively contributing Wikipedians and editors in the first place! The assume good faith (AGF) guideline instructs that unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, editors should assume that others are trying to help, not hurt the project. The point "the lead neatly summarises the arc of his career and the article is too short to be split into further sections" and the very civil pray "Please remove them" further supports the impression of a very civil contributing editor being rightfully upset because of uncalled templates placed on his talk page. --Miraclexix (talk) 22:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

_A Welcome-template was de facto the wrong choice: WP:CIVIL, because it states "Be careful with user warning templates". A second opinion from more experienced Wikipedians would have help and would have avoided the edit war and talks in the first place. Happy editing, cheers --Miraclexix (talk) 22:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Sticking a Welcome to WP template on the talk page of someone who has created 80 plus articles in over two and a half years on WP is pure sarcasm - no-one made you do that, it was your choice. You are the one who put the tags on the article - you tell me why you think that they are justified. Where exactly do you expect to find a load more sources or information on Coxon from ? 14GTR (talk) 21:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

No it was not sarcasm, You are not psychic, don't pretend you know my intentions and please assume good faith. Weegeerunner (talk) 21:47, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

A Welcome-template was de facto the wrong choice. Wikipedia guideline WP:CIV says "Be careful with user warning templates"! One can learn from his/her recurring mistakes! Why? Some do choose to place the same wrong templates in many cases. Words like "psychic" are uncivil in this case and totally unjustified based on WP:CIV "Avoid name-calling"! --Miraclexix (talk) 22:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Please do not butt in to already resolved conversations to antagonize me and bring me down. Weegeerunner (talk) 03:18, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

If her smile makes you happier than seeing her naked that means she is the one CSD

As a heads-up, I've changed that to A10, as the text is just copy pasted there from Love_at_first_sight#Historical_conceptions with the exception of the random quote that makes up the article title. Valenciano (talk) 21:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Weegeerunner (talk) 21:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Vernon Jones

Hello Weegeerunner,

I see that you have reverted recent changes to this article. When I read the article, I see some pretty glaring violations of our strict policies regarding biographies of living people. Please be careful when reverting that you do not inadvertently restore BLP violations. This could be a very serious problem, so I urge caution. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Alright, I got it, thanks for the heads up. I need to get better at recognizing BLP vios. Weegeerunner (talk) 16:13, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:ANI#Miraclexix won't leave me alone

See WP:ANI#WP:ANI#Miraclexix won't leave me alone, i.e. the section is called "WP:ANI#Miraclexix won't leave me alone". Nyttend (talk) 12:11, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Citation"Explination. Over the past months I have been struggling with depression and possibly Borderline personality disorder. I feel our recent dispute was both our faults. We were both very uncivil to each other, and I think it would be best if we both apologize to each other Weegeerunner (talk) 20:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)" (Source: [1]) --Miraclexix (talk) 09:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC)