User talk:Xenophrenic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Notice to posters: Let's try to keep two-way conversations readable. If you post to my talk page, I will just reply here. If I posted recently to another talk page, including your talk page, then that means I have it on my watchlist and will just read responses there. I may also refactor discussions to your talk page for the same reason. Thanks. Xenophrenic (Talk)
  • Incivility: I reserve the right to remove uncivil or disruptive comments and/or threads from this talk page.
  • Spam: I also reserve the right to delete any bulk messages that I regard as spamming.


Documentary about Médecins Sans Frontières work[edit]

Hi, we seem to be working in parallel about this documentary! If you would like to discuss, let's meet up on the Médecins Sans Frontières Talk page. Thanks - Pointillist (talk) 22:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your email[edit]

Sorry I hadn't checked in a few days... But I just got the email you sent me last Tuesday. Regarding the user in question, I am afraid he actually did not send me his IP address via email. The one he sent was the Wikipedia Dummy IP address, and not a real IP address, so I was unable to find the source of his blocked IP problem. When I asked him to resend, he balked, citing "privacy concerns". He DID say that he contacted the admin that issued the block, and got it straightened out with him. I don't know who that admin was, however, so you may want to see if he contacted Avraham, as he issued the IP block on the possibly related IP address you inquired about. He also issued the WP:IPBE for the user in question, so he likely knows what IPs he was using. See [1] for more information on the extent of the conversation we had on the matter. I hope this helps some... 15:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for checking, Jayron32. I'm still waiting for a response and confirmation from Avraham. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I have just posted a request for an update to the list. As soon as I hear anything, I will let you know. Thank you very much for your patience! -- Avi (talk) 01:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Wars & Kittens[edit]

sorry it looked like an edit war to me. my mistake. TomCat4680 (talk) 02:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem, TomCat :) Looks like everything worked itself out. Stay well, Xenophrenic (talk) 04:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Tea Party Astroturfing[edit]

I'm assuming your comment meant you were for the new edit is that correct? Soxwon (talk) 21:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Correct, but it looks like I was late to the party. You guys appear to be mowing down the roadblocks and concerns at a good clip now. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
It's amazing what one can accomplish once you realize we're all here for the same reason :). Soxwon (talk) 02:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Tea Party protests[edit]

IF you insist on using Google as a reference, that is fine with me. But don't censor other references in the article. The Squicks (talk) 19:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Censorship? Thank you for your admission that your personal attack was unfounded. Not in so many polite words, of course, but through your response here, which is good enough for me. I, too, shall consider the matter closed. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I insist on using complete sources, and not replacing them with inferior sources that do not contain the pertinent content. No references have been censored -- you are refering to an edit that you lost during an edit conflict as you kept reinserting your reference in rapid-fire manner without review. It appears to be fine now. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


Again? I believe I only marked it as closed once. -- Avi (talk) 05:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I forwarded the e-mail to them AND sent a reminder. They have not contacted you? Perhaps send an e-mail straight to ArbCom-l -- Avi (talk) 05:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I forwarded it again to func-l and arbcom-l saying that you're still patiently waiting :) -- Avi (talk) 05:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Vassyana has reviewed the evidence you submitted and feels that, without much doubt, all the accounts and IPs are related. As such, I've tagged all the accounts as socks of TDC. We're currently working to see if a range block could be implemented. Thank you for your patience over the past few months with this case. Cheers, Icestorm815Talk 17:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Garafalo and Olbermann on the Tea Parties[edit]

I think you're being a little disingenuous in your explanation of a recent revert. While Olbermann is sitting in the interviewer's chair, he's hardly an unbiased party and essentially agrees with Garafalo's statements, smiling and nodding along with Garafalo's attempted witticism regarding the brain structure and pressure on the frontal lobes of Republicans, conservatives,etc. I think the recent edit by an anonymous IP is reasonable and should be left alone. Thanks -- Rydra Wong (talk) 22:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I never said he was unbiased. I also never said that he disagrees with Garafalo. Yes, he nods, and smiles a lot -- just as he does with most of his guests. He never specifically states his agreement, and to interject that assumption is WP:OR.
I appreciate your view, but if you still disagree, perhaps the article talk page would be a better place to continue this conversation. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Dalton Trumbo[edit]

I have again removed the link to the official site for the movie adaptation as source for the information. The other link to Spark Notes should be sufficient. Web sites to promote a motion picture do not tend to be examples of original research, and simply compile information from other sources, and due to it's purpose (to promote the film) information can not be taken as non biased. We certainly would not cite most commercial websites that promote a product as impartial entities. It is not my intent to start an edit war, and I hope you understand this. If you would like to discuss this feel free to contact me.

Thank You( (talk) 23:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC))


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Xenophrenic. You have new messages at Irbisgreif's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Irbisgreif (talk) 23:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

MSF FAR[edit]

I have nominated Médecins Sans Frontières for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Jclemens (talk) 05:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Userbox offer[edit]

Considering the statement on your user page's "COMPLAINTS DEPARTMENT", section #2 "Xenophrenic is not assuming good faith!" I offer you this user box in good faith. You can bend/edit it to reflect your views as I did for mine. Hope you have use for it and enjoy it as I did on my userpage.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I thank you for your offer. While I did get a chuckle out of your modified user box, I'm afraid I must pass - I'm trying to avoid the use of all such descriptors and labels. I find them to be too brief and narrow to represent my actual views, feelings and traits, which are usually far more complicated and nuanced.
I'll trust your words that your offer was made in good faith, despite recent comments that might indicate the edited user box you display is less than accurate; it does use the qualifier "usually", after all. Best regards to you, Xenophrenic (talk) 01:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I must say that I dislike userboxes too, only that this one I found quite intriguing and couldn't resist. As for the "usually", of course there are always occasions where doubt comes in, yet at the end it is or can be resolved even w/o talking but rather watching. Guess you can agree on the latter (and yes, it was honestly in good faith). I stand to my comments yet my comments don't have to stay. Best, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I, too, stand by my comments, even when their usefulness eludes less perceptive readers. As for lists; if I were to keep a "trust list", it would start blank and only be populated by those that earned their way onto it -- by that same standard, I'm confident I am on every list I desire to be on. Here's hoping all our future interactions land us on our respective A-lists. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


I see that you are a regular contributer to the page , and thought this might be helpful. I would have snt it to Eyesocket, but he hasn´t been active in a while.[2] Cheers.--Die4Dixie (talk) 22:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up after me in the best spirit of collaboration :)[3] - Wikidemon (talk) 18:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, you removed my change and labled it vandalism. On 11/23/09 Wade Rathke did a book signing and lecture at the University of Memphis (Memphis, TN). During the Q&A he was asked who paid the bulk of the money back to ACORN that had been embezzled by his brother Dale. Wade said that Dale had paid back some of the money over the seven years but when the matter became public the rest of the repayment was made by their father's estate. The gentleman had already deceased and the estate was about to be settled when the theft became common knowledge. (The article had suggested the money was paid by an unknown donor) Rathke also said (at the Q&A) the auditors informed him there was a problem. At this point he did not know if it was $5 or $500,000. He said when he found out the problem was Dale and the amount was $948,000 it blew his mind. The change made to the page was not vandalism. How you can think that is beyond me. If you want to confirm Wade Rathke's remarks there were 40 to 50 people present at the time including the department head. I also have Wade's email address. How many vandals do you know who will give you the subject's email for confirmation?? E. Zach Lee-Wright —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello, E. Zach Lee-Wright,
I have removed edits of yours, but I did not label them as vandalism. This is what my edit summary said: (rem unsourced addition; returned wording to that conveyed by the cited source)
I am not doubting that you heard Rathke speak in Memphis, or that he answered questions about ACORN, but Wikipedia articles cannot contain that information unless it comes from a reliable source. You can click on this link for an explanation of what Wikipedia requires of its reliable sources. Among the 50 people in attendance, is it possible that one of them may have worked for a local newspaper or media outlet, and run a story on his lecture? Press articles, or possibly third-party recordings of the event might be usable as sources, but personal recollections by attendees can not be used. Email correspondence is problematic as well; do you know if Wade has published similar information on his blog or in newsletters, instead?
The editing and sourcing requirements may seem cumbersome, but those are the rules. Your edit was reverted due to sourcing requirements, and not because of vandalism. Perhaps you mistakenly read the edit summary for an edit by someone else. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 07:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
This is getting stranger and stranger... this user also left a complaint about the ACORN article on my user talk page, but according to Sinebot was using yet a different IP address... How many IP addresses does this person have? Whisperwolf (talk) 07:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
I saw the note he left to you on your talk page, Whisperwolf. I assume (E. Zach Lee-Wright) = ( = ( Both of the IPs geolocate to Memphis, TN, so it does appear to be the same person — maybe one is home, and another is from work or the University? As for being called a vandal, he is mistaken and probably misread the edit histories; neither of us called his edits vandalism. Xenophrenic (talk) 15:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Sock Farm......[edit]

I thought you might have a little input in this user. I have a strong belief he is a sockpuppeteer you may have had prior dealings with. User:Iadmitmybiaswhycantyou?, User:Fight the bias. Their is an Ani conversation over a quote they attribute to you at [[4]]. If you are aware of the root account it would def help. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Winter Soldier Discussions[edit]


The issue that I have is not necessarily the reference (which I can't find, but I'm not that resourceful) would be the language used in the wording should the source be kept. Undue weight is very heavy there. Do as you please, of course, but we really should work on how the information is presented. Keegan (talk) 04:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with WP:BLP before adding the information again. Specifically this section which says that such potentially negative information should be "corroborated by multiple, highly reliable sources". I don't see multiple, highly reliable sources there. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC) :To be perfectly honest, your blatant disregard to the BLP policy is appalling. When you have an admin, in your case two admins, telling you something - especially as we're both OTRS members so you clearly don't know the full story - it's best to ask questions, and stop reverting. I see that you're not interested in logical discussion so I won't waste my time. If you want information, instead of reverting and ignoring one of the most important policies that we have, let me know. - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

And with regards to your other changes which you made while reverting my edit, I apologize for missing that. I'll be happy to request on the protected article's talk page that that information be re-added. - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
OK - you should probably confirm this before an admin makes the changes. - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your comment; you're right. I've struck my above comments (if you'd prefer I remove them entirely, let me know). I did not mean to come off so rude however this is a situation where I believe we should have discussed things, rather than reverted. I've commented on the article's talk page and would hope you can follow up there. You're welcome to "take this situation to noticeboards" if you feel that will be beneficial. I have not willfully ignored any of your comments - and the other content that I removed was just an oversight, for which I apologized for. At this point, reviewing the four sources you've added, I think a case can be made for leaving them. Though some of your comments in edit summaries and talk pages were, at first read, only attempts at making a bigger issue than necessary. I think we both got a little carried away here. I apologize for my part in it and will shortly be leaving a comment for the admin who protected the article asking him to unprotect it, when you could (if you want) restore your edit. I wont do anything until I get word back from you, however. - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

ChildofMidnight back at ArbCom[edit]

You are mentioned (implicitly) here[5]. PhGustaf (talk) 01:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe your comment over at the ArbCom discussion of Law's reversal of Sandstein's block is slightly inaccurate. On the basic idea that CoM is interested in ACORN in precisely ways that violate his Obama topic ban, I could not agree more. However, it is not the case that ACORN has endorsed only one candidate. The organization has made lots of endorsements over time, though indeed Obama is the most prominent one, and the one mainly motivating CoM. LotLE×talk 19:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Press release[edit]

Please explain how a press release from a notable organization on said organizations website is less reliable than the same press release picked up by another organization? It isn't. If you want to make an argument that the contents shouldn't be on the page for another reason, please feel free to do so. By claiming that it isn't a reliable source pertaining the view AIM is not a valid claim. The criticism about it being a reliable source would be valid if it weren't for the attribution or if the group were not one of the pre-eminent Native American Rights organizations in the country, but as the reference is to the stance of AIM it is perfectly a reliable source.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 01:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Answered on the article talk page. The short answer is: It's a gross violation of WP:BLP, which requires reliable second and third-party sources for disparaging content. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 01:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Just so you know, if you had cited BLP originally instead of RS, I probably would have looked at the edit and moved on. I disagree with you about the primary sources, I think they add value, and context (if somebody reads them they will see that AIM has an ax to grind, which is lost in the secondary source.) But frankly, I don't care enough about this article or Ward Churchill. You'll probably note that I've made all of a dozen edits on the WC page in the past 2 or 3 years. I'm actually surprised that Churchill survived my watchlist purge... but I've taken care of that now.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 03:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


Do you think that User:NYsullivan is a sockpuppet for User:Balloonman? I'm not quite sure, but the creation of the new account at exactly the moment when doing so would apparently avoid 3RR for the latter looks suspicious to me. LotLE×talk 21:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, with the addition of brand new User:CU1989, I am entirely certain these are sockpuppets. Aaghh! Going through WP:SSP is way too much work :-(. LotLE×talk 22:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Possible, I guess. My assumption would be that User: (geolocated to Colorado ... home of the controversy) added the content to the article first, then registered an account name, User:NYsullivan, with which to continue editing that article 10 minutes later. Balloonman came in much later, and is probably unrelated. New User:CU1989 is much more likely to be related to Xenophrenic (talk) 22:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm... maybe you're right. I added that IP address to the report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations#Report_date_October_9_2009.2C_22:56_.28UTC.29. I'm sure I filled out that report wrong in some respect(s), but maybe someone better familiar with the procedure can sort it out. LotLE×talk 23:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Xeno for the common sense... if a user is going to use Socks, they are either going to start out with their main account, or they are going to avoid using their Admin Account all together bu starting out with Socks and stay with Socks. Plus, it doesn't make much sense for a user to goto the talk page and then use a Sock unless you really are out to assume bad faith.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 03:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
ROFLMFAO!---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 03:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


FYI - I responded to you comments on my talk page. Gustnado (talk) 02:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Need your opinion on some photographs[edit]

Hi. Can you provide you opinion on this matter? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 01:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm reporting you to ANI[edit]

{wink}↜ (‘Just M E here , now) 17:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! My life is now complete. You have restored my self-confidence and my faith that I, too, might someday be part of the "in crowd". I promise not to waste this opportunity. But first, I must contact my drama coach for some brush-up... Xenophrenic (talk) 18:33, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Lol!↜ (‘Just M E here , now) 18:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The Churchill-related article[edit]

My opinion is that you aren't really being helpful or constructive. You're setting up hoops and saying, "Jump through these." If you want to improve the article, then offer a revised paragraph that resolves all of your concerns. If your purpose isn't to improve the article, then what is your purpose? Thanks. (talk) 21:18, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. I obviously disagree. The hoops (we call them Wikipedia Policies around here) must be jumped through, unfortunately. I agree that jumping through these hoops can be tedious and annoying, and that it would be much more fun to be able to add absolutely anything to articles without these requirements -- but that is not the reality of our situation here. As for me offering a revised paragraph, my version is already implemented in the article. The paragraph we are now discussing was introduced by Phoenix. I hope that clears things up for you. Oh, and as for your final leading question, it doesn't make any sense to me. Could you please rephrase? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
It just seems a little like baiting to me, and as we've seen at WP:ANI, 64/Phoenix is a little excitable. You might be more successful if you try editing his proposed paragraph to comply with your strict interpretation of policy. Evidently you insist on unimpeachably reliable source like the New York Times cited after each and every period or comma, or you're going to keep reverting. Does that cover it? (talk) 21:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
You misunderstand. It is not I that insists on reliable sources, it is Wikipedia. We are all constrained by that same annoying yoke. I might be able to edit his suggested paragraph if I only knew where he was getting the content he put in it. Perhaps he will enlighten us in his response. The article already conveys that Churchill issued a challenge to have his scholarship examined; conveys that it was; conveys the results. Perhaps you can tell me what it is Phoenix would like to convey with his new paragraph? (I examined your contributions to that same article for examples of productivity - that didn't cover it.) Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 22:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
The trouble is that when the article conveys all those things, it doesn't cite any sources. It's a clear violation of WP:OR and WP:RS according to your standards of enforcement. But you have no objection to the unsourced passages where the article "conveys that Churchill issued a challenge to have his scholarship examined; conveys that it was; conveys the results." You only object to that addition of further details, clarifying that it was the right-wing media that responded (and very effectively) to Churchill's challenge. I've reactivated this discussion on the article Talk page where it belongs, so that others may participate. Please don't delete it again. Thanks. (talk) 02:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I've not deleted any discussions; perhaps you have me confused with another editor. I have, however, continued discussions on our personal talk pages when the content is inappropriate for article talk pages - see above. I've responded on the article talk page and your talk page as well. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 04:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I look forward to either your apology, or your embarassed silence, regarding the addition of the word "conservative." Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 23:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
And I look forward to your response to the many unanswered queries that remain on the article talk page. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Nearly all have been adequately answered. Your dissatisfaction with the answers is noted. By the way, I notice that in an edit summary, you characterized John Fritch as a "student debater." This is inaccurate. He's an associate professor with a PhD, and head of communications studies; the photo doesn't suggest that he was a student at the time of publication.[6] Also, please read WP:WEASEL. The word "claimed" is cited as an example of weasel wording (not once, but twice) in the infobox on the right. Skoal. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Most of the issues were addressed by LotLE, correct. What gives you the misperception that I am dissatisfied? Sticking to reliable sources isn't that hard after all, is it? (Note: there are still 2 fact tags that need addressing...) Thank you for the info on Fritch - the "student" description was intended to be applicable to the debate project, not the individual. Not that someone of his age couldn't also be a student. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I've read WP:WEASEL. What is your specific point? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
What part of "weasel wording" don't you understand? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
You aren't going to tell me what your specific point is? I have to guess? I see the word "claimed" in the infobox, but I am not sure what relevance that has to our article. (Wait... are you confusing the weasel verb "claimed" with the nouns "claim" and "expose"?) Please read the guideline again, instead of just doing word searches.  :) Claims is the appropriate word to describe the claims; as "exposé" automatically implies discredited claims. You are using the weasel word. Would you like to make the correction? Xenophrenic (talk) 19:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Nevermind - I see another editor has already removed your use of "exposé"; problem solved. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to the sock drawer[edit]

Apparently you an I are sockpuppets of each other. One of our anon trouble-makers of late has discovered a brand new administrative page, it seems: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SOCKMASTER#Lulu_of_the_Lotus-Eaters_-SPI_check_user. Make of it as you see fit. LotLE×talk 21:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed. He even templated my page. My first instinct was to just let the checkuser run its course, watch the anon-IP eat some crow and then move on. But on second thought, this isn't his first attempt at harassment and personal attacks, so I may end up biting back. (BTW, if you really are me, will you please stop disagreeing with me on talk pages and edit summaries? Get with the program!) Xenophrenic (talk) 21:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Did you happen to see this latest bit from our shoeless friends: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Admitted sockpuppetry by LotLE? They really do get annoying. I guess I really shouldn't even bother posting any clarification at all. Sometimes I don't bother, but I guess I'm in a bad mood about it today :-(. LotLE×talk 21:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I corrected the heading he posted under. Would you mind if I interjected myself into that discussion, or would you rather I not? Also, since socking seems to be the topic of the day, I recall the 71.* editor and 64/Phoenix both being previously accused of socking by Bali, Tarc, Scjessey and others -- did anyone ever follow up on that? Some of the accusers seemed really convinced. Editor 71.* geolocates to Illinois, near Chicago. So did Bryan and TDC/CENSEI. Also, 71.* went to the Free Republic article on his very first day of editing - an article (along with ACORN) frequently edited by these other puppeteers. All three edit from the same point of view, and all three spend far too much time dragging other editors that stand up to them through the various admin noticeboards. There may be a connection; or maybe there's just something in the Chicago water. I just wonder if it is something worth looking into more closely. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Feel free, I would appreciate your input. LotLE×talk 22:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to butt in (but i will anyway). Fellow is reasonably competent at using different IPs (at least he was) and I would assume the old SPI stuff would be stale.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


Good analogy, and wryly worded (re: hunting rifles and fishing poles). The same thoughts crossed my own mind when I saw what was posted yesterday. AzureCitizen (talk) 01:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC)


I saw the anon Fast food edit too, and as much as i hate it. it is on the template, i am reverting for now. i am checking with the original creator of the template for his\her logic on including it. I'll see if he/she will remove CEC and peter piper pizza from it. the other pizza places clearly belong but these clearly don't. i would do it myself but some editor get pretty possessive of their work. Weaponbb7 (talk) 04:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I removed CEC from the template, as it clearly doesn't qualify - and I'll be updating the article to reflect that. I don't know enough about Peter Piper to make the same change, so I'll leave that to you. I don't think it was the template creator that added CEC. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 07:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Tygart issue has been archived[edit]

Massive rewrite/vandalism(?) at Tea Party movement[edit]

This is an FYI, I suppose, but there has been some substantial rewriting attempted at the old Tea Party protests page, now moved to the Tea Party movement. It also split off a daughter article, Tea Party protests, 2009. Instead of freeing up editors to keep the moved page more topical and keep the '09 protests paired with all the historic info and developments, a concerted effort has emerged that in my view is not much more than page blanking and deleting anything that seems to paint things in a negative light.--Happysomeone (talk) 21:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I've been watching that since earlier this morning. Some of what you described is indeed happening, but there are several editors involved and I've been sitting on the sidelines and waiting to see where it goes. There is some significant and highly relevant content that won't remain scrubbed from those articles by POV editing, but I've been holding off editing until a basic framework develops for each of those articles. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
How about your view on whether the Tea Party movement is "grassroots" or not?--Happysomeone (talk) 19:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


I wonder if its time to take this one up a level? --Snowded TALK 20:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Hannah Giles[edit]

Hi Xeno. Would you mind taking a look at the Hannah Giles article history? An anonymous IP has three times changed the language that the videos "appeared to show" ACORN employees advising illegal activity to "showed," which ignores the fact that the edited videos are disputed and the only law enforcement investigation to examine the unedited copies concluded there was no illegality and that the tapes had been edited to support an agenda.--AzureCitizen (talk) 21:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

It looks like it has settled down for now. I think once the video conspiracies article is improved and cleaned up, the related linked-articles like Giles, O'Keefe, ACORN, etc., can be brought in line for conformity. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

WorldNetDaily RS/N[edit]

I have recently referenced your comments offered in the RS/N discussion(s) on WorldNetDaily WP:RS considerations within a related issue being discussed in the RS/N "talk" page. This message is to notify you of that reference and to both solicit and encourage any contribution you might have in this matter. Thanks. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


I appreciate the fact that you removed my name from that section title at the Talk:Tea Party movement page. That made me happy.--Happysomeone (talk) 22:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

You might find this interesting as well[edit]

This may also make it difficult to determine who is actualy responsible for what. Arzel (talk) 04:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Well done[edit]

I have Coffee Party USA on my watchlist, so I've seen how much work you do 'minding' that article. Thank you for doing that. (If I looked hard enough, I'd probably find something I could quibble about, but that is not important. Keeping a contentious article in good shape is important to Wikipedia, and you've done that very well.) Cheers, CWC 09:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Not much more than vandal patrol, really. Political articles tend to draw more activity of that nature, it seems. Thanks for the thanks, though. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Ellie Light[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Ellie Light. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ellie Light (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Collapsing thread to keep the peace[edit]

I'm going to put back the entire thread and then collapse it. I'm having a bit of trouble with the code for collapsing a thread. If you know it, please let me know. I tried it earlier and it collapsed everything from our thread on down which I don't want. Suggestions?Malke2010 01:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Malke. To collapse a section of text, you can put {{collapse top|Description of the collapsed content}} before the section of text to be collapsed, and insert a {{collapse bottom}} at the end of the section of text to be collapsed.
It would look something like this on your edit screen:
{{collapse top|Annoying discussion with Xenophrenic}}
More discussion...
Even more discussion...
{{collapse bottom}}
I see you've also been asking around about how to archive talk page content, and also how to set up an infobox that will display the subject's religion -- I can't help you with those. I've been messing with this for many years, and I still screw those up. I can probably hunt down the procedures though, if no one else has been able to help you yet. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, thanks, for the above. I couldn't figure that out. Gwen Gale has collapsed the thread. Hoping to archive it, though. My bot isn't working again. That's another issue. The infobox is hard. The scientist infobox has had the religion bit deleted. Don't know why they decided that. So adding it back for Dr. Farmer would involve code, etc. I tried substituting the Info Person template but that excludes his work, etc. Can't win on that one. Can't seem to find the procedures for fixing it anywhere. And I spent a lot of time yesterday looking.Malke2010 11:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I've been meaning to tell you, I thought this edit summary was hilarious [7]. XD Malke2010 17:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I thought you might :) By the way, while I didn't say it in so many words, I did appreciate your "Collapsing thread to keep the peace" initiative above. Thanks for offering that olive branch. You and I have different perspectives on things, so we are destined to have our disagreements and even arguments -- but there is no reason we can't still remain civil. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 17:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Absolutely. And judging by recent edits, we're not all that far apart on perspectives. :) Malke2010 17:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Tea Party Movement[edit]

Please go to talk page and vote for section title. Thanks. Malke2010 18:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I commented, but as usual... it ballooned into quite a lengthy essay. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I think that's a good solution. Should we give it a try?Malke2010 18:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Check email.Malke2010 06:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I read it. Did you know that I have family that consider themselves Tea Partiers? A couple of them have even gotten off their keesters and attended some rallies. Are they racist? Not at all. Do I think the Tea Party movement is racist? Of course not. But that isn't what we are discussing. We're not trying to figure out how we can make the movement look racist. We're trying to figure out how we can address the public perception and media narrative about "racism and the Tea Party movement" in the article, because it really is a big thing. It does need to be addressed, because editors are going to continue to insert stuff about this incident or that incident if it isn't first addressed in a fair and encyclopedic manner. I'm stepping out for a wee bit. More later, Xenophrenic (talk) 06:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't believe this is Tea Partiers. I think this is the media cherry picking signs and protesters and giving it the tea party label. And the fact that the tea party movement leaders are having to hire security, etc., to get separate out the fringe says a lot about how the media isn't covering the whole story. I did not know they were doing that because it doesn't appear in the mainstream media. But they never fail to photograph the fringers. And this is my concern for the article. It will become bloated with incidents like that but without any mention of who is really doing it. The Tea Party protesters will get painted with the same brush. They're concerns are financial. They are against the policies, not the man. And demonizing Bush during protests was never seen as racist or a problem by the media. It's too easy to claim racism because Obama's black and the nut brigade is showing up.Malke2010 12:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Tea party Breitbart thing[edit]

Did you mean to also remove the Breitbart reference from the "Incidents" section? Have I missed a meeting? Malke2010 17:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I did -- that was one of the primary reasons for my revert of Freedom Fan's / Arzel's edit. Please see the the section on the talk page titled: Clarification for Arzel and read the 3 links there for my explanation. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 17:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I looked at your diffs, but I didn't check out what they were inserting/half deleting. And there's nothing about it on the Tea Party Protests. Maybe we should abbreviate what's there a bit more so it doesn't get added again?Malke2010 18:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm okay with either having the complete Breitbart stuff in the article (which means it includes Trumka's direct response, and the AP follow-up story that shows Breitbart cites non-relevant videos as proof) OR with having the Breitbart stuff removed completely (since TE and Cptnono also removed it) as irrelevant (because Breitbart wasn't there; wasn't involved; was stupidly trying to "prove a negative" that the incident didn't happen, which can't be done; and he was just political grandstanding). Complete NPOV content insertion is fine; complete removal is fine. Freedom Fan's partial, incomplete, skewed POV version (along with numerous inaccuracies he has since tacked on) is not fine -- and that is what I keep reverting. The links show that this has been an issue since April 16, yet Freedom Fan has not discussed and resolved his problematic edits on the talk page. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, no need for it then. Probably should wait a bit for trimming anything else. What about the Obama race thing? I've been going over a lot of articles and a couple of videos off and on today and it's looking like the Obama comment about race had do to with the Congressman yelling out "Liar" that Jimmy Carter commented on. And then, the Today show video seems to be more about the fringers. I'm not sure now how the connection with race specifically against Obama is a valid one.Malke2010 21:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Obama's opinion, as conveyed by Gibbs, was sparked by the "You lie!" outburst, but some of the sources covering it have extrapolated that to cover a much wider range of criticism of Obama ... which may or may not include the tea partiers, depending on the source.
On a related note, I see you are stripping away just half of the Breitbart content again, leaving an unbalanced remainder in the article. Changes like that really should be discussed, and agreed upon, on the talk page first. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 23:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
The article should not take sources from one incident and apply them to other situations. That's OR. The Breitbart thing seems to have taken care of itself. I think it got deleted again and last I checked, nobody's added back. May it R.I.P.Malke2010 00:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Bah, it's back again. If you'd like to remove Breitbart (and take the Trumka, and "wrong video" stuff with it), I won't fight you on it. You can leave the blurb about the Nat'l TP Federation letter requesting that the CBC provide any addional evidence they may have about the incidents in the article if you want, as well. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Xeno, what are you doing with the 'outrageous' thing? It's POV. Don't put that in. And BTW, we've got an IP putting an advert for tea party funding into the astroturfing section. He's up to 5 reverts today, not including his own self-reverts. I left a message on his talk page.Malke2010 18:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
The "outrageous" wording comes straight from the cited source. In fact, Williams was asked about those things he says specifically because they were outrageous, so it goes to the core of what was being conveyed by the source. You could always put it in quotation marks, I guess. I didn't even realize you had edited it out ... I was trying to fix a broken citation I had messed up. As for the IP reverting beyond 3 times, I would probably list him at the 3RR noticeboard if he persists. That place is already too much of a battleground :( Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Okay, well use quotes. Otherwise it looks like Wikipedia is saying he's outrageous. Something like, "the Washington Post called his comments outrageous, etc." I had already fixed the cite. The IP has backed off so I didn't go to 3RR/N. I think it's 'outrageous' that the IP is advertising a website that funds tea parties. XDMalke2010 20:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, sorry I don't know how to make a new section but I just wanted to say to Xenophrenic: I admire your technical communication skills :)Cozzycovers (talk) 09:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

photos wanted[edit]

Hi Xenophrenic, do you happen to know of any pics we can use as an example of inappropriate incidents? The section is dense with print and I thought a nice illustrative photo, maybe a fringe type with a sign, etc., would help break it up.Malke2010 22:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

tea party[edit]

Please see this section on the talk page.[8]You've readded an edit which is redundant and does not need to be there.Malke2010 21:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer[edit]

Redaktor Wikipedia 600px.png

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Pat Tillman's death[edit]


I have recently added information, extracted from a US Army CID report that reflects there was an ambush of Serial 2 just before they fired on Serial 1 (Pat's unit). I have even gone so far as provided a link to the report so folks can read this. My post of information is supported by this official CID report of investigation, though it may be contrary to the popular information that is out there. I believe folks are confusing the information between there were no hostile forces that fired on Serial 1, veruses the hostile forces that fired on Serial 2. We need to present the facts are they are, that being Serial 2 was under the belief that Serial 1 was part of the ambush. Please review the CID report and you will what I am talking about.

Scarabaeus2 (talk) 20:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Moved to article talk page for discussion. Xenophrenic (talk) 06:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Why do you insist on removing the following direct quote from a source (USA Today source #25) cited earlier in the section???

Also according to the documents, investigators pressed officers and soldiers on a question Mrs. Tillman has been asking all along. "Have you, at any time since this incident occurred back on April 22, 2004, have you ever received any information even rumor that Cpl. Tillman was killed by anybody within his own unit intentionally?" an investigator asked then-Capt. Richard Scott. Scott, and others who were asked, said they were certain the shooting was accidental. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi. If you'll note what the edit summary says, (rem redundancy), it should be selfexplanatory. That content is already present in the article. The previous paragraph in that article states:
When officers and soldiers were asked, they said they were certain the shooting was accidental. According to one of his fellow soldiers, Tillman "was popular among his fellow soldiers and had no enemies.
...and it is cited to that same USA today article. In addition, your same edit also removed other content without explanation on that article's talk page. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The dailymail website you cite is not a reputible news source, but rather an online tabloid. A URL pointing to another website, is not 'sourcing,' but rather internet smoke and mirrors. In reference to the following daily mail statements (

"Now comes a new and even darker possibility. A growing body of evidence suggests that Tillman died neither at the hands of his nation's enemy nor in the tragic, accidental confusion of "friendly fire"; rather he was shot with three bullets in tight formation in the forehead at very close range. If so, this is evidence of murder."


"Astonishingly, long-hidden details of his death support the murder theory: medical evidence never did match up with the scenario of friendly fire; those three bullets from an M16 combat rifle could not have been fired from farther than ten yards; there were special forces snipers in the group immediately behind Tillman's platoon."

....... Neither of these articles is properly sourced, and plain inaccurate. They countermand known and undisputed testimony (previously cited in this article) that the deadly shots came from an M249.... moreover, there is no indication that these tabloid sensationalists even realized that the two weapons use the same ammunition. And perhaps you have never served in the military and do not realize that a tight grouping from a vehicle mounted (possibly stationary) light machine gun such as the M249 from approximately 40 yards, is not "evidence of murder" or magical snipers, but average marksmanship. And a meeting with Chomsky (we'll have to take Noam's word for it) is at best circumstantial, and not the smoking gun motive it is made out to be. Additionally, this article countermands itself, because first it claims that the shots were fired from 10 yards away, then that some mystical 'snipers' missing from all other testimony (including all the members of Tillman's fire team who also nearly lost their lives that day) were 'BEHIND' the other Serial... which was it.... were they 10 yards away, or behind the other serial. Either way, this 'news' publication is vacantly deceiptful in its discourse.

So this is what it boils down to: This seems like a good article, and you seem to have had a part in it, so I thank you. The U.S. Army, and its leadership (possibly as high as the president) were calously neglegent in their deceiptful dealings with the Tillman family and the public, possibly on a massive scale... And yes, none of them were properly punished for this wrongdoing. Having been under fire myself, the unit level actions, and the insuing coverup are worthy of criminally neglegent homicide and aiding charges!! But let's stick to facts and reason... insinuating an assasination or even deliberate killing is simply baseless according to the references supplied throughout the article. I followed the links referenced for these claims (some copied above), and you seem like the type of person to agree that an accusation of such weight requires more than slanderously contrived theories in an online tabloid.

Also, in reference to your above statement that the item is redundant, you are correct. I apologize for including redundancies, but thought it very important that the statement confirming an accidental killing punctuate the article. Would like to hear your thoughts, and come to an amenable stylistic compromise. Regards, O.T.S. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is the UKs second largest-selling newspaper (not just online), and whether or not it is "reputable" is a matter for WP:RSN. (I personally do not know enough about the source to have an opinion either way.) I'd suggest raising your concerns there. If you feel there is content in the Tillman article that lacks in reliable sourcing, then you should raise that specific issue on the article talk page. Other editors with interest or knowledge on that subject matter will be watching that article talk page, and not my personal talk page here -- so the article talk page is the proper venue. Continually deleting sourced content or reverting other editors without discussion and consensus will likely result in blocks and page protections. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 23:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your recommendation on the method needed to dispute this article. Perhaps I did go about this the wrong way, but I'll blame that on my inexperience with Wikipedia (as you can tell I'm so new I don't even own a login yet). I'm not even sure how this blocking and protection thing works, but it seems to make sense that constant stylistic disputes would cause this forum to become a zoo. However, in this matter, I am serious about preventing slander. Unfounded claims of conspiratorial premeditated murder of Pat Tillman, further defame his name and detract from genuine factual accounts of the real army PR white wash which occurred. By all accounts (and I've read most out there, in addition to some of the actual redacted investigation notes) any claim of premeditation in this is wholly false. The only purpose these slanderous claims accomplish, is to allow those who should be held accountable for the Army's propaganda to escape since the genuine fact finding of the Tillman family is lumped with these nutty conspiracy theories. The U.S. National Inquirer may be ranked among syndicated news sources just like this Daily Mail, but referencing it as a source in an article is plain yellow journalism. Thank you. Best O.T.S.

Bill Maher[edit]

Hi, Xenophrenic!

I was just wondering why you deleted my edits in the Bill Maher page. I'm a huge fan of his (have been for years) and am currently rewatching all the Real Time with Bill Maher episodes (from 2003 onwards). I just thought I'd read up on Bill on Wiki and discovered that the Political Views section is a little thin. I'm absolutely certain Bill has expressed the views which I included in my edit, numerous times at that. How come you deleted them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vivisexionist (talkcontribs) 19:38, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Vivisexionist. The content was removed because it wasn't cited to a reliable source. While you may be absolutely certain that the content is accurate and relevant, the rest of us readers need to be equally certain. Can you please provide a citation to reliable sources supporting your edits? Thanks. By the way, my edit summary should have been more descriptive, but the edit was accidently entered before I added comments. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick and detailed response. I will try to find citations and I hope there are transcripts of the shows somewhere. Vivisexionist —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vivisexionist (talkcontribs) 01:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Hallo Xenophrenic from Barmispain, I have to ask. Why have you removed my edit which categorizes Bill Maher in American Jews and Jewish comedians? I don't believe it is because you dispute that he is American or that he is a comedian (though some may not be sure about the latter). Your action presumably relates to the correctness of his ethnicity. I'm always very careful to follow Wikipedia guidelines when it comes to biographies and particularly categorization, and would only categorize someone on the basis of referenced material. Maher's Jewish ethnicity is based on referenced information and this is correctly cited in the article. I notice the latter has been in the article for a material length of time. I don't want to start of ping-pong process of inclusion and deletion of information in this article, so please let me know why you insist on its non-inclusion. (I notice that you have removed other categorizations of this individual before, as well.) Do you have information that proves that Maher is not Jewish?Barmispain (talk) 08:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

nndb is not a reliable source, and there are no reliable sources in the article stating he is Jewish. Jayjg (talk) 03:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Tea Party[edit]

this edit. You know that there was a reason for removal. Try to ingage in talk rather than make uncivil remarks in the edit history along with the previous claim that I was making POV edits. Arzel (talk) 13:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Arzel, why did you use the word "vandalism" in your edit summary when you reverted Xeno's edit of 12:13 15 July 2010? Reading WP:NOTVAND makes it clear that those are uncivil remarks in edit summaries when used in such fashion. From now on, please refrain from using the word "vandalism" in your edit summaries when describing other editors positions --AzureCitizen (talk) 14:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I said boarderline vandilism because of a limited effort to engage in discussion and misleading edit comments. Arzel (talk) 13:14, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Arzel, please do not misrepresent the situation; especially on my talk page, where you know your misstatements will be quickly corrected. Given the possibility that you have misread or are confusing one edit summary with another, I will copy my edit summary here just so we can be sure we're on the same page:

(restored content deleted without explanation)

As you can see, that is not an uncivil edit summary. If you'll look a little more carefully at the edit previous to mine, you'll see that an editor had deleted content without giving an explanation for the content removal, and without participating in the existing talk page discussion -- so my edit summary was not only civil, but accurate. As for your suggestion that I should "engage in talk"; please note that I have already been discussing this very issue on the talk page, which leads me to believe you are probably confusing me with another editor.

With regard to the ongoing discussion about your proposal to remove certain the polling data, you still have not made a case for its removal. Your initial objection that the poll was only of the Seattle area has been shown to be inaccurate. According to the news link provided by you, "Similar to nationwide numbers, about 20 percent of registered voters in Washington state identify themselves as strong supporters of the Tea Party movement. University of Washington Professor and pollster Matt Barreto decided to delve into the social and political opinions of that 20 percent." The poll sample was of 1700 folks from Washington State, and the specific findings were based on results from strong supporters of the Tea Party movement, not some special "fringe" group of TPers that don't represent the "real" TPers.

Finally, in your haste to revert, you apparently overlooked and wiped away other edits that included reference formatting, etc. Please use a little more care. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 17:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

You don't understand polling. You cannot use a poll from one limited subset of people to frame the entire US. It might be possible to include if Washington State was a bellweather state, but it is not, and has never been. Arzel (talk) 13:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
All polling is of a limited subset of people, and the poll we're discussing isn't trying to "frame the entire US"; it is examining Tea Party movement supporters. It might be possible to exclude if reliable sources indicate so. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
I ask you to please stop making dishonest edit summaries, like you do here [9], which reverted my edit here [10]. I can't remember if I've warned you in the past, but have noticed numerous incidences with other editors asking you to quit it. I don't know is it constitutes vandalism or a personal attack, and frankly I don't care. The biggest problem would be the disruption it causes and the confusion to other editors that may not understand your sense of humor. Thanks. TETalk 06:09, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi, TE! Here is my exact edit summary:
(Undid revision 373845909 by ThinkEnemies (talk) restored content deleted without explanation; returned sourced polling data per talk)
Looks honest and accurate to me. I did revert your edit that deleted the "after receiving sharp criticism from other tea party leaders" content. I did return the polling data that had been previously boldly deleted, for reasons explained on the talk page. No humor intended. Perhaps you have my edits confused with those of someone else? Let me know if I can be of any further help. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:46, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


Ceemow is a textbook example of a single purpose account. Literally 100% of his edits—not 90%, not 99.99% but 100%—have been on mainspace and article Talk pages for ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy, the related Wikibios of Mr. O'Keefe, Mr. Breitbart and Ms. Giles, and three User Talk pages (where he discusses nothing but this extremely narrow subject matter). TMCK was discussing this on my User Talk page, and defending Ceemow as you are: by deleting the entirely appropriate SPA tags.

Then he ran away.

If you'd like to pick up where he left off, I offer a cordial invitation to my User Talk page. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 04:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, P&W. I responded on your talk page. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Xeno, why did you remove the {{collapse}} tags on the article Talk page? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 02:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Taina Elg[edit]

Just curious. Why did you revert my edit re Elg's place of birth. Any definitive proof she was born in Helsinki? Yours, (talk) 20:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Rms125a! I based my edit primarily on Elg's autobiography, and in particular on this bit of information from the forward of Varpailla maailmalle:
Taina Elg was born at the Boije Hospital on the Boulevard in Helsinki, but the family moved soon to Turku. Taina's mother was a Russian emigrant pianist, named Helena (Lola) Dobroumova, her father was a pianist named Åke Elg. They were divorced when Taina was three years old. Taina and her mother moved to Sortavala, then to Suojärvi, then to Impilahti, where Taina's maternal grandparents had a big villa. From there they moved to Helsinki, from Helsinki to Mariehamn, from there to Viborg. Then the Winter War began and they were evacuated to Rantasalmi. After that they moved back to Helsinki, where Taina started balet classes at the age of 10 in 1940.
I understand Helsinki & Impilahti have both been used to describe her birthplace, and she did live in both locations, but most sources put her birth in Helsinki. Do you have reliable sources that contradict this? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
No, sounds good to me. Thanks for your detailed response. Yours, (talk) 18:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs[edit]

Information.svg Hello Xenophrenic! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot notifying you on behalf of the the unreferenced biographies team that 1 of the articles that you created is currently tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 1,429 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

  1. George Edward Smith - Find sources: "George Edward Smith" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 08:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Statistics at Restoring Honor Rally[edit]

Howdy again! Have you noticed the discussion over at Restoring Honor Rally regarding the statistical estimates of the crowd size that attended the August 28th event? The relevant portion begins here starting with the page being put on lock down for 7 days, then if you work your way down you can see the proposals. Don't know if you have any interest but I thought I'd bring it to your attention. --AzureCitizen (talk) 13:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been watching it. With the article currently protected, I may hold off on commenting for a little bit while the more vocal editors there hash things out. If the discussions work their way into a "deadlock", I'll see if I have anything constructive to add. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Could you provide the source for Beck predicting before the rally that the media would diminish the the crowd size through estimates? ThanksThe Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 23:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I'll see what I can dig up. I recall Beck, during one of his radio shows, making a comment that he expected the media to minimize or underestimate the attendence, and he also indicated that he would be ready for that. Accusing the media of bias is a daily routine for Beck, but finding his exact words about coverage of his rally turn-out will take a bit of digging. A quick search turns up these similar examples of the coverage he anticipates, but they aren't the ones I'm looking for on the crowd size specifically:
  • "You know, I don't know if anybody's even going to cover it. They can cover it in the newspaper... No, no. They'll cover it, but will it be the truth? They'll cover it any way they want. The stories are already written. It doesn't matter." Fox
  • "You watch the media. They'll paint it any way they can." Fox
  • "My prediction is that this will be covered incorrectly, they will take one line from somebody or one thing or they will find one person on the stage that shouldn't have been there and or there will be somebody in the crowd, whatever, they will focus on one thing." Beck
...about the media's anticipated coverage of the event. Still looking for complete transcripts of radio shows... Xenophrenic (talk) 05:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Very entertaining. :) As you said previously, you like to swim in the deep end... AzureCitizen (talk) 02:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


Hey Xenophrenic, we're editing our wiki page Cinequest Film Festival and have run into some issues. We noticed that you reverted most of our recent changes. Can we chat when you have a few minutes. Thanks! --Opsal.matt (talk) 23:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I always have a few minutes; what specifically would you like to discuss? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 05:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
We're trying to re-write our wiki to make it more neutral and update some of the events over the years. In your opinion, we should reference claims as much as possible so that they are verifiable versus stating claims as fact? Would this distance our edits from the marketing language that has been reverted? Opsal.matt (talk) 17:12, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
When editing Wikipedia's articles, content additions should be cited to reliable sources, and the content should be written in encyclopedic, informative fashion. Several of the previous edits were reverted because they had removed content without explanation, or had undone formatting and links. In addition, wording that carries a promotional tone, or directly copies wording from the organization's website, is likely to be reworded or removed. Do you know if the more recent events to which you refer have been covered in newspapers, magazines or trade periodicals? Xenophrenic (talk) 19:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
I'll work with our PR and Mktg teams to find the articles so we can properly cite each edit. Thanks Xenophrenic! Opsal.matt (talk) 21:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Archived Talk:Restoring Honor rally[edit]

Hello, I archived Talk:Restoring Honor rally for two reasons, 1) my browser kept crashing when I viewed the page and 2)It would help the mediation process if the angry conversations were archived. Thanks --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 19:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure which of the ongoing conversations are the "angry" ones that you describe, but you also archived all of the current discussions -- some less than an hour old. Perhaps you could remedy your browser deficiencies without disrupting ongoing discussions? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I know that some of the arguments are less than a hour old. But they are the same argument that were at the top of the page. Continuing would be Wikipedia:Beating a dead horse. The continuing debate is at a draw, that is why I proposed a compromise. Not to mention that the dispute crashes browsers :). Best, --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 19:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

'turf wars[edit]

Astroturf article lists numerous conservative examples of astroturfing, but very few liberal examples. One recent example associated with Obama and democratic support, 'Ellie Light' letters to the editor, was removed because it 'referred mass-mailing, not astroturfing.' which I'd argue isn't the case.

Why the bias? Valkarie63 (talk) 06:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Valkarie63. Astroturfing is neither conservative nor liberal. As for the Ellie Light incident, that doesn't qualify as "astroturf". That was an individual doing a mass-mailing. Every letter to the editor was signed by Ellie Light, not by unique names, so there was no attempt to appear as many different people and no attempt to appear as a big grassroots effort. Just one person mailing to a lot of newspapers. As for "bias", I'm not sure what you are asking. Care to elaborate? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 08:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree that a-turfing is party-independent and is used by both parties to various extents. Article to be fair/objective (if that is the goal) would show that in content and in numbers. 'Ellie' was intended to appear from different people in different cities with different addresses with the same purpose: to portray 'grassroots' support for the president when it was from one person/organization. Following the definition presented for astroturfing, this is one example of " political campaign that are formally planned by an organization, but are disguised as spontaneous, popular "grassroots" behavior."

If the "content and numbers" of 'turfing incidents appear to lean to one side or another, it is possible that there just happen to be more on one side than the other; but feel free to add appropriate and reliably sourced content to "balance" the article. "Ellie" was not intended to appear as different people; what other names were used? As for claiming different addresses, 'Ellie' did that to meet the requirements set by the newspaper editors that letters should be from local residents in order to be printed. While that is certainly dishonest, it is in no way "astroturfing" and wasn't "formally planned by an organization". Xenophrenic (talk) 17:49, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm struggling to get how the readers of the 42+ papers that carried the letter would reasonably conclude that they were part of the 'mass mailing' campaign as you call it. To the readers, the letter intended to influence public opinion from someone in their community when in fact the citizen was 'planted' to promote one view as a 'grassroot' letter. It was dishonest but also disguised as spontaneous citizens expressing their opinion when it wasn't. Taking a different approach on this before pursuing other examples, was would have to be different for the Ellie letter to be considered as an astroturf example? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

All letters to editors of newspapers are intended to influence opinion, and the 'Ellie' letters are no different. You say, "It was dishonest but also disguised as spontaneous citizens expressing their opinion..." -- it was a citizen (not the plural "citizens" as you said) expressing an opinion. There was no attempt to appear as many people. Much the same as when a campaign office of a politician emails their talking points to millions of people, it goes from one source to many recipients -- just as the Ellie Light letter went from one source to many recipients. It's not astroturf; it's politics as usual. If you could cite some hidden "organization or group" behind the effort, then you might be able to make a case for astroturfing, but there wasn't any -- and that is why the article on it was eventually deleted. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Xeno - I'm curious to know how the Paul Krugman opining qualifies as a valid, supported example of astroturfing, especially when compared to other examples and submitted but deleted examples. It wasn't a mysterious deletion because I annotated the edit with comments on fit and standards you provided earlier. What gives? (talk) 05:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Krugman's opining doesn't qualify as an example of astroturf. You can find the definition of astruturf here. Also, how a situation compares to other situations is not part of the definition of astroturf. The edit I reverted had no explanatory edit summary. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
So the last entry of Krugman opining on what is astroturfing should be dropped from the list of political examples, correct? (talk) 18:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Why? You still haven't stated why it should be. No one is claiming that Krugman is an astroturfer. I also don't see where he is expressing an opinion of his own. Looks like he is talking about reporting by TPM, LA Times, etc. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Good question: why is Krugman's talking about reporting done by another source about a POSSIBLE astroturfing example listed as an example?! You yourself said that his opinion doesn't qualify as an example, and it certainly doesn't meet the definition you provide. Maybe another (better) question to ask is how did this edit get reviewed/approved in the 1st place...if by your own logic it doesn't meet the definition or standards bar you're setting? (talk) 00:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
No, "me myself" said "Krugman's opining doesn't qualify as an example of astroturf." It's true; giving opinions isn't astroturfing. People give their opinions every day and no one accuses them of astroturfing. Were you going to answer my question? Xenophrenic (talk) 00:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
What question did you want me to answer? Why the Krugman line should be dropped from the examples list? (talk) 04:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Guess this is where it ends? Thanks for the opportunity to learn 1st hand how 'pedia content and user contributions are managed, policed and protected.Valkarie63 (talk) 15:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Still no answer? No matter, you are very welcome and I am glad I could help. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Just so you know[edit]

You have a friend here.TMCk (talk) 23:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Yep.Malke 2010 (talk) 00:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I warned the ip. Looks like sockpuppetry. Any further action needed? --Ronz (talk) 01:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Good idea on the warning. How do you know he's a sockpuppet?Malke 2010 (talk) 02:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Looking at his contributions and what he has said about me, I guess I must be doing something right. Thanks for reverting the trolling, TMCk, and for warning the guy (gal?), Ronz. Malke, I can't say for certain that socking has absolutely occurred, but the ducks are quacking loudly: (talk · contribs) - Registered to New York State Unified Court System (talk · contribs) - First edits on a New York Court Competition
Wikigirl33 (talk · contribs) - Only edits on a New York Court Competition (got logged out and edited from the IP above?) (talk · contribs) - Tag-team edit-warring in January with 207.x & 24.x on Harry Smith (television) and others
TruthfulPerson (talk · contribs) - admits to being IP 207.x here
...would definitely head the list if I were to file a SPI, with geolocations near New York (near the PA border), Court Systems and editing the Coffee Party USA article (within minutes of each other) being the common denominators. That, and the obvious love of tendentious edit warring with Xenophrenic. Xenophrenic (talk) 06:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't see any obvious use of sockpuppetry to get around or avoid a block. I'd hold back on a SPI report at this time, but then I'm very conservative on the use of SPI. --Ronz (talk) 17:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
4+ reverts all on January 2, spread across multiple accounts, on the afore-mentioned Harry Smith article, indicates abusive socking to avoid a block (and that is just one example). He is also effectively avoiding scrutiny, since the numerous warnings and blocks he has already received has been spread across many accounts, and therefore doesn't look as severe. I'm not motivated to file a SPI just yet, but I have a hunch a checkuser investigation will be part of an inevitable, larger disruptive editing complaint. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Restoring Honor rally article[edit]

My apologies. However, AzureCitizen has also made three reverts in the same period without explanation. Editing is deadlocked because certain editors decided to waltz in and undo everything we fought over for a month. For that reason I am going to request that the page be locked again until we work it out. Again. BS24 (talk) 03:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I see an explanation from AzureCitizen about his edits on the talk page. Perhaps you missed it? As for requesting that the page be locked until the problems are resolved, you could just opt to not edit the page until the problems are resolved. That way, the edit warring ceases, and other editors can still make productive edits to the article. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. BS24 (talk) 03:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
...or you can push forward with having the page (or the editors that oppose your edits, I see you suggested) locked and blocked. Perhaps your method may turn out for the best, as it will surely draw more eyes to the situation. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 03:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Xenophrenic, just a note to let you know that you were discussed here. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 18:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been following that, too. You do know that IP address has been blocked before as a proxy, right? Hopefully all the sniping will subside soon, and productive editing resume. Best, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
No, I wasn't aware that it had been blocked before as a proxy - how can I figure out something like that in the future? --AzureCitizen (talk) 18:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
I stumbled upon it as I was checking the IP's contribution history, by clicking on the "Block log" link. There are tables, somewhere, of common proxy IP ranges that bots use to identify proxies. Any of the checkuser admins could probably give you more detailed information than I could. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
That's good to know, I've never clicked on the "block log" link before and thus learned something new today. Thanks! Here's to hoping things quiet down and get resolved amicably... --AzureCitizen (talk) 19:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation of Restoring Honor rally[edit]

A request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to Restoring Honor rally was recently filed. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is entirely voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. Please review the request page and the guide to mediation requests and then indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation request welcome at the case talk page.

Thank you, AGK 21:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

In the interest of compromise/civility I have taken out the edits to the issues summary which were critical of you. I just want to end this process once and for all, and we need your cooperation. BS24 (talk) 14:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
In regards to your mediation talk page concerns, I have removed the sockpuppet piece. I completely agree with you and User:AzureCitizen, who I am working with for a fairer mediation request page, that the proposed mediation should focus on content and not other editors. If you have any other concerns, please contact me, or add them to the Additional issues section of the mediation page. Thanks! BS24 (talk) 03:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Xenophrenic. You have new messages at The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous's talk page.
Message added 20:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Request for mediation accepted[edit]

The request for mediation concerning Restoring Honor rally, to which you were are a party, has been accepted. Please watchlist the case page (which is where the mediation will take place). For guidance on accepted cases, refer to this resource. A mediator should be assigned to this dispute within two weeks. If you have any queries, please contact a Committee member or the mediation mailing list.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK 19:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Message delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.

Restoring Honor Mediation[edit]


I have agreed to mediate the Restoring Honor case. I'm requesting that all parties start with opening statements, instructions are at the top of the page. Thanks for agreeing to go to mediation, I'm hopeful we can get this resolved to the satisfaction of all parties. Don't hesitate to contact me with any questions or issues. --WGFinley (talk) 00:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Alleged Sockpuppetry of BS24[edit]

I think you're right and a proper investigation is the next step. I've never launched one and will try to take care with it. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 19:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

This was not hard to do, and your research made the task easy. [11] The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 20:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Whoa whoa whoa. I thought we were moving away from personal attacks against editors. Guess I was wrong. BS24 (talk) 22:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, the personal attacks against editors has indeed subsided. Are you indicating you are aware of recent incidents? Xenophrenic (talk) 01:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Forced break...[edit]

Just an FYI, I'm going to be in a travel status throughout the weekend and into next week until Wednesday or Thursday, with little chance to edit, so I won't be around much for talk page discussions with SpecialKCL or the RHR Mediation page (which seems to be crawling along at a snail's pace anyway). Just wanted to mention it lest it seem like I just disappeared, LOL... AzureCitizen (talk) 16:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

You haven't missed much; things have been 100% uneventful in your absence. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy[edit]

Xenophrenic. You might want to take a look at [12].TMCk (talk) 16:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up, and also for the words of advice you offered on that situation -- even though they unfortunately went unheeded. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your assistance with the ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy page. I think it looks better. (talk) 23:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
It still needs a lot of work, but you did a huge amount of the tedious reference clean-up; thanks for that. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 17:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Xenophrenic: Hi. I have no idea how the YouTube refs got reinserted. I don't even use YouTube. The edits I made were specifically indicated in the edit summaries (i.e. spelling correction of Leoning to Leonnig; possessive tense ("Giles's"); space between words, etc.) Is it possible someone else was editing at the same time and their edits got piggybacked onto mine while my very slow dial up service was processing? Otherwise I really have no idea. As I say I have no interest in YouTube and would not have dealt with anything to do with YouTube unless I hit a wrong key somewhere while I was typing but that doesn't really explain it does it. Anyway to fix whatever had happened on my watch I went back to your edit from 11:28, 29 October 2010 (whose summary states "See Talk Page; rem non-reliable source and deadlink YouTube links and citations") and redid my own minor edits from there. Hope everything is OK now. (talk) 13:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

FYI - Courtesy Notification - WND RSN[edit]

Within a current RSN, I have quoted an observation of yours made to a prior RSN on World Net Daily as an RS. I believe I have made both a fair and relevant representation of your prior comment but I am alerting you should you wish to further clarify or, perhaps, contribute further comment. Thanks JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Xenophrenic. You have new messages at Magog the Ogre's talk page.
Message added 19:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

No need to respond, just FYI. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


I actually thought the word "Murder" was vandalism, cleverly inserted into the URL title, as I hadn't read anything about ACORN workers being accused of murder or confessing to it. However I see that was not the case but at the time I was manually redacting the YouTube snafu (see above; which I still don't understand) and didn't get that the "murder" confession was one of the "absurd" confessions made by the former ACORN employee Tresa Kaelske, which was not specified in the Wikipedia article text. Got it now. (talk) 14:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The YouTube thing was probably just an edit-conflict mixup, as we were both editing at the same time. No worries. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:57, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

By the way, is it necessary to include the adjective "Democratic" re politicians such as Scott Harshberger, Jerry Brown, and Charles Hynes? I don't think there is any reference to Schwarzenegger as "Republican". It sounds partisan. (talk) 14:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you, and have commented further on the article talk page. I mentioned your concern there. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:57, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Checked out "broken" link, to which you referred. It functions fine without the "/", not that it is a big deal. (talk) 17:29, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Yep, I removed the '/' and it worked fine. You probably just hit an extra key during your edits. Thanks, by the way, for cleaning up the refs, etc. I noticed you had to redo some of your work a few times when the article kept getting reverted. Watching you have to repeatedly fix the spelling of Wolf Blitzer's name was getting frustrating. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:57, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Restore Honor[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Xenophrenic. You have new messages at's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Xenophrenic. You have new messages at Bwilkins's talk page.
Message added 11:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Indefinite Block of BS24[edit]

BS24 is on indefinite block for abusing multiple accounts. [13] This editor has had many socks and is likely to return under a new account. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Your riddle too hard for me[edit]

I don't know the answer to your riddle, so I ask someone for help. (talk) 21:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


SpecialKCL66 is real suspicious. It was created on Oct. 10 2010, has been blocked for 3RR and edit warring [14], is contentious and prone to ad hominem attacks (according to an admin: "I have rarely seen such a clear case...of an editor who blames others for their action[s]"), and this the kicker, has a precocious familiarity with Wiki protocols and Wikilawyering, WP:ANI, forum shopping (going to another parent) etc.... SpecialK also has a fondness for one of BS24's tagging articles with nuetrality tags, showing this hardly a week after starting to edit. [15],[16] I asked the newbie if this SpecialK was a clean start. Given NYyankees51's compulsive nature, this all smells of duck. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 05:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


I have declined your speedy deletion nomination for this redirect. According to Per User talk:PhilKnight#Karrine Steffans and the source mentioned there, this redirect doesn't qualify for speedily deletion. Favonian (talk) 15:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


Saw your comments on the mediation cabal page. I've been waiting for you to show up.  :) Malke 2010 (talk) 05:45, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Malke! I did a brief fly over to remind the mediation participants that just because a proposal appears to only have one supporter in the mediation, that does not mean that proposal isn't widely supported by other Wikipedia editors outside of the mediation. It can't be stressed enough that consensus is achieved by agreement among the participants, and not by counting votes. You won't be seeing much of me at that mediation; the holidays are fast approaching and the joys and stress of the season will be consuming more of my time than usual. Good luck with the mediation (remember to keep a cool head), and I hope the holidays find you in good health and spirits. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Happy holidays to you, too, Xenophrenic. :) Malke 2010 (talk) 05:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Restoring Honor rally[edit]

Hi Xen, I saw that Arzel undid your valid change. I brought this issue up on the talk page. (talk) 18:29, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I noticed; I read it; I fixed it. Per the cited CBS source, "CBS News elected to use the higher estimate." If there were only one estimate, as Arzel wrongly asserts, then CBS would not have had to choose between multiple estimates. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
You fixed it incorrectly. The statement implies that there were multiple estimates of 87,000. This is not factually true. Arzel (talk) 20:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Incorrect. The text in the lead says, "scientific estimates placed the crowd size around 87,000". All of the scientific estimates noted in the article do indeed fall "around 87,000". That text "implies" nothing more to me, so perhaps it is a matter unique to your personal perception. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
You noticed; you read it; you fixed it; problem solved. (talk) 08:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


Good idea. Could you also append that to the Honor Rally talk page, so all are aware? BTW, I'm beginning to suspect benign neglect on the part of ArbCom. Any ideas on how to sound them out> --The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 18:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll see if I can get us another mediator to either take over the project, or at least fill in during Wgfinley's absence. As for the ArbCom ... there is not much I can say; they operate mostly behind closed doors and without any apparent urgency. I think we just need to wait on the results, but we certainly don't need to put the mediation on hold. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for Tea Party racist sign image[edit]

If you take it to deletion review and want a supporting view, drop me a note. This was an obvious case of fair use. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 04:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Dale Robertson Racist Sign.jpg[edit]

Hi Xeno,

I was just adding up the editors for your deletion review and was wondering if I'm missing anyone. Omitting the two editors with zero previous edits, I have the count at:
Keep Delete
User:Xenophrenic User:Angusmclellan
User:BigK HeX User:PhilKnight
User:NightDragon User:Stifle
User:Jack1993jack User:SchuminWeb
User:Dcoetzee User:ThinkEnemies
User:Dylan Flaherty

_* Uploader of file -- No comment despite three separate notifications

  • This may be subject to change

Not sure how much the vote matters, though. Do you think this should be mentioned at the TPM talk page if the review results in a relisting? TETalk 00:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I took the liberty of adding the name of the editor that submitted the image and introduced it to the article; I'll go out on a limb and guess that he would be pro-keep. You are right that the vote doesn't matter as much as establishing that the image can or can not be used under the "Fair Use" rules, without clearly violating WP:NFCC. Xenophrenic (talk) 06:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
I just removed my asterisk. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:58, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
LOL, I didn't want to be too presumptuous. Removed mine as well. TETalk 02:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Hey there Xeno, little late to the party. How'd it get deleted in the first place? Did somebody complain? Is it a copy vio? Malke 2010 (talk) 02:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Xeno my friend, I've commented on the deletion thing. Malke 2010 (talk) 03:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Think, not at all. I made my intentions very clear in the section above, so you were quite right to place me in the left column. I'm happy, because this is my big chance to be on the left for once. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi folks. I think the primary complaint was that Wikipedia's "fair use" of the image might deprive the cited source of commercial value, which would violate WP:NFCC#2. Since that source required several variations of much higher resolution to illustrate the assertions made by the source article, the version in use by Wikipedia cannot possibly "replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media." (Note that Mediaite says the image closest to the original that they could obtain was a high-res version here, from the Houston Tea Party website.) Not to mention the fact that there are 100+ documented uses of that image across the interwebs already. Xenophrenic (talk) 06:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Xeno, looking at the higher-res image you just linked, I noticed that the offensive term was clearly written on a separate sheet of paper that was later attached to the sign. (Presumably, he misspelled it even more on his first attempt.) Out of curiosity, is that detail noticeable in the lower-res image that we had prior to the deletion? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 06:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
According to an exclusive interview with Robertson:
The photograph in question, available in hi-res here, depicts Robertson holding a sign that says “Congress=Slaveowner, Taxpayer=Niggar.” The misspelled n-word appears to have been duct-taped over the original sign, which Robertson claims read “Congress=Slaveowner, Taxpayer=Slave.” He says he never taped anything over the original sign, nor did anyone else. He says the photo must be a fake.
Robertson further claimed that he would provide a photo of the "unaltered" sign (but he still never has), and photo experts have since determined that the image has not been photoshopped or faked. I've also seen reports (rumors which I can not confirm) that the sign originally said "nigger", but Robertson was told to either stop displaying the sign or change that word; so he taped a misspelled version of the word to the sign. I don't recall how much sign detail was visible on our lower-res image. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

TinEye is a really cool tool. Bookmarked. TETalk 17:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly what I said when I first discovered it on Malke's talk page! (Just send me a bill for any royalties, Malke...) Xenophrenic (talk) 21:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Will do, my friend. In the meantime, I've dropped off a little early Christmas gift. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


Team Barnstar.png The Teamwork Barnstar
For Xenophrenic. This is in appreciation of your efforts in working with others to build not only good articles, but in helping to make Wikipedia a collegial community. Well done, my friend. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Malke! My first Barnstar; I guess that means I am no longer a barnstar-virgin, and I owe it all to you! Oh wait, there must be a better way to word that...  ;-)
Here's hoping you have a fantastic Thanksgiving. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:25, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

in regards to your self-revert, my talkpage[edit]

Don't worry about clutter or abrasiveness. I would restore your post but I'll leave that up to you, perhaps you could simply strike/remove the 'limited' from 'limited opinion.' -PrBeacon (talk) 20:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I put it back. I had been typing it out in segments before you posted your latest response, but with many interruptions (I was simultaneously making phone calls and working on other projects), and didn't notice your comment until after I had saved mine. Yours conveyed much the same thing, without all the excess verbiage and examples (and my trademarked snarkiness). By the way, your observation that I could have worded the article talk-page header better is spot on; but I tend to follow the old newspaper editor's adage that "A headline must grab the reader and command him to read the article, even if it goes a little over the top..." Best regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Alright, after her most recent comments, I'm finding it difficult not to suspect we're being trolled. If I respond anymore at all, it will be to tell her to take it to ANI. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Restoring Honor[edit]

Any info on the mediation? (OK to leave response here) The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 01:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't know if this helps. (talk) 18:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
AGK has responded, and says he'll try to find another mediator for us. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

re TPM[edit]

Great line at Talk:TPM -- "Duh!" stories don't usually have news articles written about them, while "Huh?!" stories usually do. Your recent post there and the earlier exchange with Lucy-Marie make me wonder why we got off on the wrong foot at the Restoring Honor rally, re crowd size. Anyway, I thought you might also like to weigh in at the SPLC page where a couple of POV-warriors are wearing down the regulars there. (I'm relatively new at that article but unofrtunately I'm familiar with their tactics from other articles like MMfA and Fox News). Regards, -PrBeacon (talk) 03:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Not to interfere with the hug-fest, but I should probably mention that both Glen Beck and Sarah Palin are currently hot spots. Dylan Flaherty 03:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

This edit[edit]

... isn't humor as much as it is largely true. ;) TETalk 21:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Heya, stranger :)
The only true parts of that edit were the names Giles & O'Keefe. I'll take your "wink emoticon" as an indication that you already know this. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Nah, my wink was aimed at acknowledging that the edit lacked balance. If you don't know -- I'll advise you to learn about these stings and what they yielded. They [O'Keefe and Giles] didn't get the exact same responses aiding in their prostitution business and the young illegals they were bringing in, but, they received more than enough help from certain locations. We know better than to argue about known facts, right? TETalk 08:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I did learn about the antics of O'Keefe and Giles -- both about what they "received" from the people with whom they spoke, as well as what they tried to make the public believe they received. We know better to argue about known facts, of course; I shouldn't need to advise you to not argue from a position of lack of facts. Get the whole story. Would it be an imposition if I were to ask you for just one specific example of the most damning "yield" from O'Keefe and Giles? Xenophrenic (talk) 09:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm confused, your edit summary states: "no partisan conspiracy groupies here, so we'd better stick to the facts". What does that mean? Aren't you the one that is asking me to illustrate the most "damning" events that led to the defunding of ACORN?
Do you want my opinion of what I found to be the most objectionable, or are you asking me to repeat what the media and Congress says was the worst?
Should I also explain why water is wet and fire is hot?
We're cool, you know. I just don't understand why you would be digging in as some kind of conspiracy theorist. TETalk 08:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Of course we're cool - that's why I am engaging you on this issue, instead of just waving you off as another parroter of a partisan meme. I've come to expect at least a reasoned argument from you (whether or not I agree with it, or whether it proves to be 100% based in fact), and that is what I've been trying to draw out of you. I've seen the videoes manufactured and released by O'Keefe/Giles/Breitbart, and the damage they did before they (and the edited-out parts) were investigated and closely examined. I have also seen the results of those investigations into the videos, and into ACORN, conducted after it was too late. It turns out the videos were heavily edited to falsely convey a sinister storyline; there was no criminal activity on the part of the ACORN employees; investigations by the Government Accounting Office and IRS found no mishandling of money; and O'Keefe & accomplices are presently defending themselves against several lawsuits.
You mentioned "aiding in their prostitution business and the young illegals they were bringing in", which sounds a lot like the original fabricated storyline, rather than the actual "aiding in protecting a fleeing prostitute and underage illegals from an abusive pimp" reality, gleaned from the unedited and full version of the recordings. You do see the disconnect, right? You asked me, "Aren't you the one that is asking me to illustrate the most "damning" events that led to the defunding of ACORN?" No, I am not -- you have misunderstood my question. We all know what led to the ludicrous defunding reactions, before anyone bothered to actually look into the edited "videos" and ACORN. (See Sherrod for a similar demonstration of reactionary lunacy to misleading video editing.) I was asking you to give me an example of what you think is the worst thing that can be pinned on ACORN from the O'Keefe productions, POST-investigation into said production. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Quick note[edit]

Just a quick note/FYI, the quote from the "dead link" actually comes straight out of the CA AG Report at the bottom of page 4 in footnote 2. Figured you'd want to know that if you missed it previously... AzureCitizen (talk) 22:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, good find, and thank you! I have also seen sources describe it as a disputed "claim" made by the AG. As far as I know, the $5 million claim was a misstatement advanced by a couple former (dismissed) disgruntled ACORN folks that have been filing their own lawsuits. I've been going round & round on this point with a special purpose account on the Rathke article. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I've replaced the deadlink source with the St Augustine Record source. I see the deadlink source was dated October 2009, which predates the April, 2010 CA AG report -- so I doubt that report was the original source. Do we have a resolution to the investigation being done by the Louisiana AG ... or was it shelved? Xenophrenic (talk) 22:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
You found the best solution - I didn't realize it pre-dated the CA AG report.  :) Unsure as to how the LA AG investigation was resolved (would be interested to know), but you're probably on the right track thinking it was shelved or dismissed... AzureCitizen (talk) 22:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


Hello, Xenophrenic! I can't find the copy I used to have of Sullivan & Maiken, but the sources I have say 18 months:

Foreman 1992, p.63 - "A model prisoner, Gacy won parole, and on June 18, 1970, after serving only 18 months of his sentence, he walked out of prison a free man - although subject to provisions of parole."

Linedecker 1986, p.47 - "Even if Gacy hadn't been paroled after eighteen months," Judge Van Metre pointed out, "he would have been out in less than five years."

Even this source (which appears to be based on the Sullivan/Maiken source) says 18 months. Can you quote the exact sentence from the source? We've got to go by a consensus of sources, and I'm curious as to what the source says. Thanks :> Doc talk 09:35, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Howdy, Doc. I used Google books to take a peek at "Killer Clown: John Wayne: The John Wayne Gacy Murders By Terry Sullivan, Peter T. Maiken"; I entered "parole" in the search box, and found the following text on page 276:
Shortly after noon on the appointed day, Gacy's best friend from Waterloo, Clarence Lane, picked him up at the release center in Newton. Gacy had been incarcerated for twenty-one months of his ten-year sentence. (Here's a link)
I'm not real sure why there's a 3 month difference between sources, but I did notice in the Linedecker 1986 source, page 40, that the judge gave Gacy 84 days of credit for time served (spent in the Black Hawk County Jail during the proceedings prior to his sentencing). I also see in the Linedecker 1986 source, on page 36, it says:
In September and again in October, Gacy was referred by order of Judge George C. Heath, of the Tenth Judicial District Court of Iowa in Black Hawk County, to psychiatrists for evaluation of his mental health. (Link)
September would be 21 months before his June 18, 1970 release date. Also, according to Linedecker (page 37), Gacy was entering his plea in court as far back as November 7, 1968 -- that's 19 months and 10 days before his release date, so he has certainly been incarcerated at least that long. It appears he spent 3 months (84 days) in the county jail during his court proceedings, and was then sentenced to 10 years and transfered to prison, where he did an additional 18 months before being released. You are welcome to handle the wording of that any way you see fit. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Awesome - thanks for the links, too :> I hate it when reliable sources contradict each other, and it's always a challenge on how to handle it. Three months is probably an eternity in prison, and it's weird how the "of his sentence" part was included in the one source. We'll figure it out, but it's not a huge deal. Cheers :> Doc talk 03:29, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Breastfeeding - poor latch[edit]

Hi Xenophrenic, and thank you for finding a reliable source for this! You've probably just made Mother18 (talk · contribs)'s day. All the best. Mr. Stradivarius 10:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Greetings, Mr. Stradivarius!
I've been running into a lot of editors recently who have been inserting links to their personal websites into Wikipedia articles, usually as a way to increase traffic to those websites. When I glanced at the website cited as a reliable source, I saw that it was created by the less-than-professional sounding "Clip Sisters", and had a sales pitch at the bottom for anyone "Interested in buying this power point or any of the information you see on this site". My first impression was this was just another instance of website promotion, so I deleted it. Your reversal of my edit prompted me to look for more suitable references to cite that would allow us to keep the content in the article. That's when I located this list of higher grade references also used by the very website Mother18 had cited, including some medical journals. If Mother18 cites those journals directly when introducing related content in the future, she shouldn't run into the same difficulties. Best regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Western State[edit]

If you have a Linkedin account you can view O'Keefe's full profile. Under education he says Western State law school. Not sure how to cite such a source, but in any case the article that says he went to UCLA is incorrect. I think the journalist just assumed UCLA because Lila Rose went to UCLA. Ogo (talk) 03:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Ogo. The problem is that LinkedIn does nothing to verify that the person making the account is actually the person in question, or that the information added to the profile is accurate. As such, we can't reliably state that the information is accurate. Even if it were allowed, which I do not believe it currently is, it would fall under the restrictions for self-published sources about themselves, which can be found at WP:SELFPUB.
On the otherhand, if a reliable source conveys information about a subject, we generally accept that information unless it is disputed by another reliable source. We can't just act on our own personal beliefs that a reliable source is just making assumptions. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

which tp edit did you mean?[edit]

is any of the text in the current article yours, if so where? Darkstar1st (talk) 08:55, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Mine? I doubt it, as I only enter content from reliable sources. If you are asking if I have added new sourced content to the article that wasn't there previously, then yes. The content on the newly formed National Tea Party Federation, for instance. But the majority of my edits consist of reverting vandalism, improving formatting, minor wording changes so that content from sources is properly conveyed, and other gnomish work.
While I have your attention, maybe you can give me your opinion on something. When it comes to defining the TPers policies and positions, which of the several major groups holds the most influence, if any do? Xenophrenic (talk) 22:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
the beauty of the tp is it is a single issue group, taxes. many people try to add other issues, but none are universally accepted in all tp circles except the founding issue, less tax. this is also the reason for the broad acceptance, most of the 53% of the adult population thinks we pay too much. some of the 47% who dont pay income tax also understand lowering tax rates would actually increase tax revenue overall as more jobs and investment would result. Darkstar1st (talk) 09:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I'm fairly certain 99% of Americans would like to pay less tax. That doesn't sound like a TP-specific concern. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


Create a mini-project to bring the articles of Neda, Mohamed Bouazizi, Khaled Said, and Hamza Ali Al-Khateeb up to GA/FA status. Possibly expand to include others whose deaths became symbols of war and peace (i.e. Pat Tillman). Would you like to work on something like this? Ocaasi t | c 21:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Reading is Fundamental[edit]

Copied from this talk page and this talk page to here for further discussion:

More illuminating commentary. Thank you. I've used neither sarcasm nor innuendo, but you are welcome to interpret my comments as such if you feel it helps you in some way. To answer your only question: Take it as it was given, as serious communication (no sarcasm or innuendo), especially the part about your editing the Steffans BLP (not all "BLPs", as you have again misread). My intent was to suggest that the Steffans BLP would be best handled by dispassionate (about her, and her "life", and her reputation, and her "noteriety", etc.) editors. If you have trouble understanding me (you wouldn't be unique, as I occasionally am not as clear as I could be), simply let me know and I'll do my best to clear up any confusion. Heh, or you can keep jumping to wrong conclusions and keep ending up with nothing but misinterpretations -- *shrugs* -- your call. By the way, I will indeed continue to work on snarkiness; I anticipate having it honed to a fine art eventually.
One request, The Gnome: could we please continue this (if that is your want) on either your or my talk page? We've cluttered Fæ's page enough, and we've even strayed from the original issue. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 04:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
The sarcasm and the innuendo in your correspondence are in the eye of the beholder, of course. Let's just leave your text up for all beholders. No more need be said on this, as I imagine more of it will be coming down the pipeline. On an unrelated note, I trust you will indeed work on getting rid of your self-admitted snarkiness, as promised.
One last request, Xenophrenic: could you please explain on what basis exactly you would think I'm not "dispassionate" enough to contribute to this particular article? When I said I inted to stay away from (appropariately) editing it, I was clearly pointing out my previous involvement in it, which again involved the duo of you and Malik Shabazz, a truly exhausting and dispiriting experience. I never implied I'm in any way passionate about the subject or the article. You may be confusing 'persistence' with 'passion'; not the same thing. Or you are simply throwing around ad hominem labels. Recap: You insinuate I'm not dispassionate; prove it. Or, else, sail on.-The Gnome (talk) 07:06, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
As I've noted above, "I've used neither sarcasm nor innuendo", but I've said you are welcome to 'behold' my comments any way you wish -- at least we agree on something.
  • "...I trust you will indeed work on getting rid of your self-admitted snarkiness, as promised."
You appear to have misread yet again. Here is what I said: "I will indeed continue to work on snarkiness; I anticipate having it honed to a fine art eventually." Glad I could clear that up for you.
  • could you please explain on what basis exactly you would think I'm not "dispassionate" enough to contribute to this particular article?
Of course -- but just so we're clear, I suggested that dispassionate editors would better edit the article, not that you were incapable of editing it. Your comments about "snow-whiting" and "noble endeavor" are the basis. When you see me remove poorly sourced content from this BLP, you make remarks that convey to me that you feel text is being 'supressed' because it is, in your opinion, negative or unflattering, instead of simply in violation of Wikipedia editing standards. That leaves me with the impression that you have already formed beliefs about the subject of the article, and that you would rather see those personal conclusions in the article instead of encyclopedic content that meets Wikipedia's requirements. In addition, you have referred to multiple editors as "a duo", further reinforcing the impression that not only do you feel your personal conclusions are being supressed, but that there is a concerted, collaborative effort to do so, instead of simply acknowledging that more than one editor has considered your edits problematic. There is no conspiracy here. Finally, reviewing your recent input on the article talk page and Fæ's talk page, fully 80% of your comments are about editors, and their alleged motivations, or their user pages, or misrepresentation of their comments to you, etc., while leaving a bullet-pointed list of actual article improvement concerns completely unaddressed.
Hopefully that more clearly explains why I feel the article would be better served by more dispassionate, less-invested editors. Preconceived conclusions about the article subject, conspiracy theories about cabals, and the combative nature of focusing on editors instead of article improvement are unproductive. Malik's very first sentence in his response to the latest round of content issues states: "I don't feel strongly about including it one way or the other, but it's got to have solid sources." I feel the same way. Do you have any interest in helping to achieve that goal? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:45, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Well. I've had quite a few discussions with other Wiki editors, through the few years I'm here, and not all of them were quiet affairs but I have to concede first prize to you for sarcasm. Even when you seem to be denying the existence of sarcasm in your texts, you cannot help being sarcastic! Case in point, what you wrote above: "You appear to have misread yet again. Here is what I said: 'I will indeed continue to work on snarkiness; I anticipate having it honed to a fine art eventually.' Glad I could clear that up for you." Really? Well, go ahead and carry on, hone that snarkiness to a fine art. I happen to consider snarkiness extremely counter-productive in a collaborative effort, such as Wikipedia editing. Therefore, the rest of your text is rendered meaningless. It is quite clear that you are not in Wikipedia to contribute and/or collaborate in a honest and straightforwad manner (e.g. you refuse to abide by one of its most fundamental principles) but for other reasons, which I care not analyse. Please stay away from this Talk Page. It's been soiled enough. Sail on, now.-The Gnome (talk) 22:19, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
  • "Really? Well, go ahead and carry on, hone that snarkiness to a fine art. I happen to consider snarkiness extremely counter-productive in a collaborative effort, such as Wikipedia editing."
Yes, really. And you are welcome to your opinion. I, on the other hand, find it frequently breaks down all-too-formal-barriers and allows for even more productivity. But to each their own.
  • "Therefore, the rest of your text is rendered meaningless."
Huh? Where did that come from? If you don't have a reasonable answer, or need more time to formulate one, or realize you cannot, just say so ... no need to come up with non sequitur leaps of illogic.
I see you have also declined my request that you provide a diff showing the alleged violation of which you have accused me (no surprise there). One of Wikipedia's hundreds of fundamental principles, the WP:AGF guideline suggests that editors "should assume good faith". Identical in practice and function, my personal guideline is "do not assume bad faith" -- and I then go Wikipedia one better by refraining from making any unfounded assumptions at all (which, by the way, is fully supported by the very page to which you linked). Try it sometime; it does wonders for the advancement of contribution and collaboration in building this encyclopedia.
If you don't want my responses to you, then do not address me. Simple enough. Also, I don't sail; looks like fun, though. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 23:03, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
I was serious, by the way, when I asked if you had any interest in helping with the proper sourcing of content in the Steffans article. I know you've indicated that you are "on the sidelines", but your input as one of the proponents of the content at issue would be valuable. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 05:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

On your recent post to ANI regarding review of an administrator's conduct.[edit]

Hullo. I did look this over, albeit in something slightly less than my usual depth.

I was initially taken quite aback by the content of the talk page you referenced. (And seriously, thanks heaps for coming out with all the diffs and all layed out and well formatted. It's a breath of fresh air.) But it seems to be quite out of character for this person. Maybe you've just rubbed them up the wrong way somehow? (Noting of course that everyone has to own how they respond to being rubbed, just saying.)

I've left a note on their talk where I hypothesis you're cut from 100% troll meat, by the way.

If this doesn't quiet down, please do feel free to leave a note on my talk page, I'd be happy to attempt to broker a detente. I'm quite effective, usually both parties end up hating me so much for my blundering and ham-fisted communication that they forget entirely what the beef was they had with each other.

Aaron Brenneman (talk) 06:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I need to stop making that joke-at-my-own-expense, lest I accidentally make it true by repeating it too often. Is there no place in this binary world for any nuance? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 10:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and I failed to mention before that I'd appreciate it if you could refrain from reverting F for a little while? This may be tantamount to asking you not to edit it, I realise, but the article isn't going anywhere and it might help cool things down. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 10:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I've refrained for a while; going to go back to editing now. In particular, I'm concerned about the loading up of the Talk page with material that WP:BLP policy otherwise won't allow in the article. Doesn't BLP cover Talk pages as well? Xenophrenic (talk) 19:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

TPM parentage[edit]

Hey Xeno -- I ldon't kow about the rest of JLMadrigal's comments -- and I don't know why SignBot hasn't added a signature for him -- but I looked at the Atlantic reference, and it does in fact refer to Paul as the intellectual godfather of the TPM. (I found the WP Ron Paul article interesting in that regard as well.) Jo3sampl (talk) 20:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't disputing that some have referred to him as the "intellectual godfather" of the TPm. My concern was that he was being described as the founder of the present TP movement, which he isn't. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 17:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Possible copyvio problems - Wade Sanders[edit]

Hi Xenophrenic, I have been directed here by your Complaints Department. Please could you take a look at Talk:Wade Sanders#Possible copyvio and offer your thoughts. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I've addressed the issues on the article Talk page. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 17:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
You havent explained your edits on the article and are dangerously close to edit warring over it. Please reconsider and come talk about it. ZHurlihee (talk) 20:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
You should read the article talk page. Missed you, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


I have to admit, I'm one too.[17] There's nothing wrong with bots per se, but their quality is directly related to the skill and attention of their algorithm writers. ;) Even so, that posting is disturbing. A few stock phrases are one thing, but duplicating an entire conversation is another.   Will Beback  talk  10:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit conflicts[edit]

LOL, looks like we were thinking the same thing at the same time. AzureCitizen (talk) 21:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

In the span of about 20 minutes, I had edit conflicts with you on 3 different articles. Yours were always a split-second before mine; I guess I'm getting rusty ;-) Xenophrenic (talk) 01:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Coffee Party related articles & 3-Day old account:Galafax[edit]

  • FYI, there is a posting on ANI regarding your editing on Annabel Park; the user lodging their concern apparently forgot to post the usual ANI notices. AzureCitizen (talk) 05:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the notices. Galafax has also posted at the 3rd Opinion noticeboard as well, but appears to have removed that request. It would probably be better if all of these identical discussions were rolled into a single location just to cut down on the confusion. I'll refrain from commenting until a proper venue is selected, and a neutral summary of the existing issues is generated. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
DRN had them close down the 3O request (Otherwise it's canvasing). When I saw the ANI thread, I cross linked both postings and made the suggestion that one should be closed down to unify the discussion. Hasteur (talk) 12:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the assistance, Hasteur. The new Galafax account hasn't edited since he posted his request at various venues. As of this bot edit, the ANI thread has been archived. As for the remaining DRN thread, Galafax's statement completely misquotes me; Galafax links this diff, and then claims I reverted it (I didn't; that was a different editor). There is really nothing at that thread to which I can respond to at this time. As I noted above, I'll be quite happy to comment if a neutral summary of actual existing issues is ever generated. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
...that thread, too, has scrolled off into the archives. I'm going to consider the issue closed until he reappears under another name. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

James O'Keefe BLP concerns[edit]

Hi, the material I removed with this edit is inappropriate because it makes controversial claims about a living person in the encyclopedic voice, rather than merely summarizing noteworthy criticisms and allowing readers to draw their own conclusions. Please note that there is an exception to the three-revert rule for "Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP)." (See WP:NOT3RR) Please discuss this material on the article talk page before reinserting it. DickClarkMises (talk) 04:19, 21 August 2011 (UTC) FYI: I've submitted a report at the BLP noticeboard here. DickClarkMises (talk) 04:29, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Howdy. Please raise your specific concerns on the article talk page for discussion. I've looked at the diff of your edit, and I do not see the "controversial claims" to which you refer. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 06:20, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

James O'Keefe[edit]

Thanks for working on this and keeping me informed. Editors have been incorrect in using material from RS; I have found more inaccuracies in this article than almost any other, including changing words in quotes. Also think the Lead is getting overweighted with lengthy quotes. Made some changes to the Hoyt material - he didn't have the raw footage at the time, as it wasn't released until after the California AG had released its report. (Something I had noticed a while ago.)Parkwells (talk) 17:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Your edit summary gave me a good chuckle[edit]

Hey, I logged in and checked my watchlist and saw this edit by you, and your edit summary gave me a good chuckle for whatever reason. It just sounded funny. I'm super tired and needed a good laugh! :) John Shandy`talk 13:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


Hello Xenophrenic, I just wanted to let you know that you are mentioned by myself in this ANI post. Thanks,  Redthoreau -- (talk) 21:24, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Remarks allegedly made by Clinton, Berry, et al[edit]

not only is the qoute in a rs, (ill let you look it up since i am making the point it does not belong in wp, ergo, why no source listed, but i will eat my hat if i am wrong, see user page for proof i will actually eat it.), but 3 other people, with high lvl clearance, witnessed her say it. Darkstar1st (talk) 20:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

You are making the claim, so I'd appreciate if you'd direct me to the reliable source upon which you are basing it. By reliable source, I mean sources that would meet Wikipedia's standards for such a contentious assertion about a living person. I have looked, and I see no sources, and would consider that assertion to be nothing more than 'National Enquirer'-style rubbish or political chicanery. If "the point you are making" is that such rubbish doesn't belong in Wikipedia because it isn't reliably sourced, then you will get no argument from me. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Some would say that Civil rights laws were not passed to protect the rights of white men and do not apply to them, but civil rights apply to all people, Mary Frances Berry, Chairwoman, US Commission on Civil Rights. i cant stand getting quotes out of context, if you can provide a source for the above, i will strike my post and issue an apology. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
I'll show you mine, if you show me yours. And I asked first (see above). You took the Obama quote out of context, as described on the TPm talk page. You haven't yet provided a source for the alleged Clinton quote. Now, I see that you have finally produced a source for a "Ramirez and Berry" statement, but that source contradicts (and certainly doesn't support) the alleged Berry misquote you also posted. Where is the source for that? Oh, wait ... I see now. You claim it is from Robert R. Detlefsen's "Civil Rights Under Reagan", page 141? Sorry - your misquote isn't in that source, either. You didn't think I'd check? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Alan Grayson[edit]

I have asked for a third opinion on the infobox issue and it's now listed there under active disagreements.-Regards-KeptSouth (talk) 12:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


Didn't realize you were in the protect ip page. (I had had a copy open most of the day so I was looking at cache.) I'll go work on some of the other stuff that needs doing, so we don't trip on each other. I've only looked at your first edit, it looks fine though. Elinruby (talk) 11:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to edit while I am editing; it is no bother to me. It's a multi-user system, if not the best design. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 17:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Halfstar Hires.png The Half Barnstar
Half a barnstar each to Elinruby and Xenophrenic - you guys bicker like cats and dogs, but somehow the result of your personal friction is damn good joint editing. The current state of the SOPA intro is something to be proud of, awesome job. Keep fighting I guess? Sloggerbum (talk) 07:03, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


Why undo my templating of a reference? The reference was put into its right form and added an archive. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 18:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Please accept my apologies. The change to the reference citation was inadvertant. I had rolled back an edit immediately following that reference, and your change apparently got caught with it -- it should be fixed now. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
It's fine, and I was just confused and didn't revert as it may of been reverted on purpose. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 23:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Isn't a separate candidates/opposition section pretty useful when people are actively looking for anti-SOPA challengers to support instead? [18] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel831 (talkcontribs)

You are welcome to create an article for those people, if you believe it would meet Wikipedia's encyclopedic requirements and if you believe you can find suitable reliable sources from which to draw. Xenophrenic (talk) 10:44, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Request for your perspective on SOPA[edit]

Hi Xenophrenic, there's currently an ongoing discussion about splitting the Stop Online Piracy Act page at Talk:Stop_Online_Piracy_Act#ONGOING_DISCUSSION_-_Splitting_the_Article. You've familiarized yourself with the entry before, and your insight and perspective on the matter would be appreciated. Hope to see you there, Sloggerbum (talk) 23:34, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Seems to have been well covered by the numerous responses already posted there. I see a wide variety of proposals, none of which seem to satisfy everyone. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Reinstating Smith copyvio note[edit]

You removed a noteworthy fact cited to highly reliable good quality sources here. Your reason seems to be objection to the characterization in the edit summary of this matter as "widely reported in news" - which it was. Examples:

Time [19], Forbes [20], International Business Times (twice) [21][22], Atlantic Wire [23]...
Also via well known secondary outlets (TechDirt, Mashable etc) usually considered RS for BLPs.

If you feel "widely reported" in the edit summary would be a poor description of this, or risks a BLP issue, just ask me to revdelete the edit summary, or if I'd mind you doing it. I'd have agreed, though it's useful and significant for clarity. Reinstated bare fact with an edit summary that is specific and verifiable to high standards but tried to avoid egregious mentions, hence giving extra detail for you here instead. FT2 (Talk | email) 19:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Update: if you actually meant you would like not to have mentions of time, forbes or "wide reporting" in the ES without them being verifiably cited in the article, that makes more sense. The link for Forbes is already in the article, the links for Time and IBT are above, please go ahead. Also do you want to collapse this section? FT2 (Talk | email) 19:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi, FT2. "McCain has a black baby!" and "Obama is a secret Muslim!" allegations were also widely reported, and I'm not oblivious to the intended impact. However, my concern is that it fails to meet the "High quality reliable sources" requirement of BLP. Reading *all* of the sources shows that he hasn't been "found guilty" at all, and actual reliable sources don't stretch that far. Should we really be citing blogger Tassi for the criminal accusations you've edited into a Wikipedia article? I understand that he is the villain of the hour, but seriously...
We really should be discussing this on the article talk page. Would you mind if I copied this to that location for continued discussion? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
That would work. The difference in this case is there's a specific copyright holder who has specifically stated it's his photo, and specifically stated copyright was violated in its use when he learned of it. Forbes, a major business magazine, and Time, both published on it as did many others. We have not one reliable source saying this isn't the case. Even Smith did not issue a statement denying the violation. Words like "theft", "hypocrite" and the like were used, headlines read "X is a copyright violator" with no qualifiers to avoid legal action, nobody sued, the headlines weren't retracted. So unlike the random conspiracy theories, it's verifiable and reliably sourced, even for a sensitive BLP point. I wouldn't have added it otherwise, and having added it I gave it minimal mention to avoid undue weight. Hence my surprise at your concern. I was also surprised you added "apparently" which is not sourced and crosses into breaking NPOV/NOR, as sources are clear it was a violation, not "apparently" one (on the same facts). I think that word has to be removed, but again, it's not something to rush on, if you want to consider it a bit. Thanks for discussing though, and if there's still an issue, let's keep talking. FT2 (Talk | email) 21:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
What the photographer actually specifically stated is:
  • "I switched my images from traditional copyright protection to be protected under the Creative Commons license a few years ago, which simply states that they can use my images as long as they attribute the image to me and do not use it for commercial purposes. I do not see anywhere on the screen capture that you have provided that the image was attributed to the source (me). So my conclusion would be that Lamar Smith's organization did improperly use my image. So according to the SOPA bill, should it pass, maybe I could petition the court to take action against"
The fact that you don't have Smith's side of the story should be a red flag. And an editor as experienced as you should know that we don't cite story headlines for our information, as those tend to be notoriously over-the-top to grab a reader's attention. No qualifiers in the headlines, you say?
  • The Author of SOPA Is Also a Copyright Violator (Sort of) -- The Atlantic Wire
And that article never really says he is guilty; it just quotes the photographer. No, the sources (reliable ones, I mean ... not the blogs trying to create a story here) are not clear that it was a violation. As for the word "apparently"...
  • The pretty picture in the background? Apparently Smith didn’t attribute it to DJ Schulte, the photographer who took it. --Time
We could test this out on the BLPNoticeboard just to be sure; should be no scarcity of input given all the commotion surrounding this issue. Look at the bright side: it will certainly lend even more visibility to the "ironic" incident. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

SOPA process for court order[edit]

Penyulap inadvertently undid your undo of my change from earlier. My reasoning behind that edit was, as in the edit summary, the separate process for IP holders, which the next paragraph details. Since IP holders have to first notify the ad networks and payment processors before seeking an injunction against a specific company, it can't really be grouped with DOJ's ability to seek a blanket order forcing all payment processors/ad networks to comply. If I have something terribly wrong, just replace the text again. Thanks.--Res2216firestar 02:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I doubt the "undo" was inadvertent. Thank you for the additional explanation -- I see the reasoning behind you edit more clearly now, and I've reincorporated most of it with a minor change. The first sentence was intended to be a collective statement about both "court order" processes, with the subsequent text explaining each one. The wording was probably derived from this in the cited source:
The bill, called SOPA, would allow the U.S. Department of Justice and copyright holders to seek court orders requiring online advertising networks, payment processors and other organizations to stop payments to websites and Web-based services accused of copyright infringement.
Let me know if the present wording can be improved. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 13:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Firestar, it would be helpful if you could add a note about changes of mind like this to the talkpage of the article, it's difficult for me to keep track when it's on user talkpages, just makes me look as if I'm warring, when I'm so doing my best to help everyone on that page. Penyulap talk 08:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


Hi Xenophrenic, I wanted to invite you to join a discussion where I asked about you here I hope you'll come along and have a chat. Penyulap talk 17:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


Cirts idea and the solution, can you see any problems with it ? Penyulap talk 20:21, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fæ[edit]

A request for comments has been opened on administrator User:Fæ. You are being notified due to your prior participation in ANI, RfA, or RfC discussions regarding this user. Thank you, MadmanBot (talk) 20:07, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up[edit]

As his history shows, he is pretty difficult to deal with. I bet he is a helluva guy to pal around with in real life.

Incidentally, he is "Ike" on Cleanup.atf, that is where all the new accounts came from yesterday to build his "consensus".AceD (talk) 12:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of John Kerry VVAW controversy for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article John Kerry VVAW controversy is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Kerry VVAW controversy until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Gamaliel (talk) 18:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

FYI - Courtesy Notification[edit]

As I was intent on changing my position to a simple Keep in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Kerry VVAW controversy petition, I have asked the closing admin to consider re-opening the AfD to accommodate that position change. JakeInJoisey (talk) 04:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Any reason besides the one you gave in your edit summary?[edit]

You reverted this external link without a reason. I was/am curious. Swliv (talk) 23:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

No reason, besides the one I already gave. Per WP:EL, external links should be kept minimal in articles. It had nothing to do with the actual content of the link (I haven't looked at it, in fact) -- I merely reverted an addition to an already too-long list. So why, you may ask, did I revert that one, and not the link you added just a couple days ago? The short answer: I've seen your edits around Wikipedia (SOPA related articles, I think?) and they appear legitimate, whereas 100% of the edits made by User:Chrisbis have been to linkspam external links to the DIPEx Charity website into various Wikipedia articles. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 01:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Thnx. Mea culpa. Y, to SOPA, a bit; real. Cheers FN. Good to be off on a right (or left) (or correct) foot, with you, for sure. And, FBFW, you've now steered me toward ... DIPEx .... \:-| I need intriguing distractions like a .... Swliv (talk) 21:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Feeling like a cat leaving a dead mouse offering at the doorstep. Swliv (talk) 02:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm stunned that such a widely linked-to individual doesn't yet have his own Wikipedia article. :-) Xenophrenic (talk) 22:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


Why redirect to "Revolutionary movement"? It provides absolutely no information about STORM, nor should it. In fact that article is essentially a dictionary definition. (talk) 21:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Howdy. The BLP to which you redirected also provides absolutely no information about the group, nor should it. A reader looking for information about the group should be given reliable information about the group. The "Revolutionary movement" article cites examples, and this could be just such an example (see the full name of the group), but is presently in stub format. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:34, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Steffans talk page[edit]

Please stop edit-warring over the talk page. If you can't participate in a civil discussion about possible WP:OWN behavior, maybe you need to take a short break from the article. (Please note that I'm not offering an opinion on the merits of the complaint.) Think about it. Thank you. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 07:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Malik. Please don't confuse an inappropriate posting of unrelated commentary about editors with a "civil discussion about WP:OWN behavior". The editor posting the garbage has clearly stated, "So rather than discuss it I await mediation" ... so I am waiting for him to initiate that mediation. He hasn't raised a concern on the article talk page that can be "discussed", despite being asked several times. Can you offer a suggestion that will help move things productively forward? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 07:26, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
I've re-read User:Warmtoast's messages and while I see your point, I think it's better to leave the message alone than to edit war over it. I just left a comment in response to the editor's latest message, which included numerous diffs. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 15:32, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey[edit]

Peace dove.svg

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite

Hello Xenophrenic. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.

You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 01:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


Regarding your revert at Bev Perdue, the source does exist, but an extra character was added when the link was put in the article. You can see it here. (I didn't revert your edit because I don't necessarily think it even belongs in the article. No action requested.)  Frank  |  talk  20:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Frank. Since I got a 404 error when following the initial link, I had already assumed that was the case. I was able to locate The Blaze source by simply searching for the article title, and then noted that article was just parroting this WITN story -- but thank you for taking the time to provide that link anyway. I won't be reverting my edit, but if I were, it would be to simply state that she was against the amendment, and perhaps to quote her Mississippi quip. It certainly doesn't warrant its own useless "Controversy" header (the current "Political positions" section is fine for this), nor the previous editor's "drew ire" qualification and focus. Information on public figures political positions is fine for these BLP articles; partisan word-play sparring between Governors ... not so much. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Agree; again, no action was requested. My note was as much for your benefit as anything; if someone comes back and says "YES IT IS THERE" you don't have to take the time to dig through and figure out what they're talking about.  Frank  |  talk  22:34, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Requesting another topic ban for User:BruceGrubb. Thank you. Jayjg (talk) 01:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Bill Maher[edit]

I suppose we could just say taking "Maher & his sister". It is sister, right? I think he only has one sibling. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 14:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Jenny McCarthy[edit]

Seriously? You bounce clearly relevant information that is thoroughly backed up by government sites and documents. You do this solely because the links go through another site whose _URL_ you object to? And you say that you are not even going to review the information? Unbelievable. Kcmurphy88 (talk) 01:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Believe it. Please read WP:BLP, especially the parts about sourcing. Thanks, Xenophrenic (talk) 01:50, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Friendly notification[edit]

Hi Xenophrenic, I mentioned you here. Best wishes, DracoE 18:25, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Bill Maher edit undo[edit]

The youtube link was the audio of the person cited. It is an appropriate use of an audio or video recording and it supports the statement I added to the article. You deletion was inappropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drinkzin (talkcontribs) 18:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

It was removed as non-notable tabloid trivia. If your addition conveys encylcopedic information of interest to readers, then I'm sure you can find that information conveyed by a WP:RS. YouTube is not a reliable source. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 22[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Tea Party movement, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scott Walker (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

CNN article and other news agency references[edit]

Hi Xeno. I and others (see the CNN talk archives) would like to keep this article free of references of other news agencies. You reverted a removal of such a reference, justifying this change as wording from the supporting citation. First, this should be a direct quote in double parenthesis if you truly wish justify inclusion based on that alone. Second, though most importantly, it is irrelevant whether ten other agencies were specifically 'worded' in the citation as this article is on CNN, not Fox, or MSNBC or whoever else may be mentioned in the citation.

This is a slippery slope that has, after some battles, already been fought back and won. This article is as neutral as one could hope to expect considering the topic. If we allow all of these other news agency references to creep in again, I fear it will turn back into the CNN vs Fox vs MSNBC battleground that it previously was (and that the Fox News Wikipedia article sadly still is). I will remove the reference in 24 hours if I do not hear back from you either here or in the CNN talk page. I know you would like to keep the conversations here, but the talk for this article already has a section and I'd like others to see it so that there can be consensus. Daydreamer302000 (talk) 08:47, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Responded on article Talk page. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:44, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit war at Zero Dark Thirty - closed[edit]

See WP:AN3#User:Mollskman reported by User:StillStanding-247 (Result: ). You appear to have reverted the article yourself during this time period, and you have made at least four groups of edits on September 2. An edit such as this one, marked as a copy edit, seems to change some of the disputed language, such as 'selectively edited.' If you will agree to avoid the article for seven days, the case might close with no sanctions against you. If you want to dispute the 3RR, consider commenting in the report. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:37, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Ed! It appears that I slept through all of the drama and fireworks; the editor who reverted at least 4 times in a 24 hour period has already been blocked, and the case closed. I do still wish, however, to respond to the message you left me. If you'll indulge me, and allow me to momentarily don a wikilawyer hat and ruthlessly parse the crap out of what you said:
  • You appear to have reverted the article yourself during this time period
Yes, I did. So did Mollskman, Belchfire, Orvilleunder, StillStanding-247, North8000, AzureCitizen, and even InfamousPrince, if the removal of tags that I inserted is considered a revert. Out of all these editors, only Mollskman reverted more than 3 times in a 24-hour period. A "revert", defined as any edit that changes existing content, is a legitimate and necessary part of the editing process.
  • you have made at least four groups of edits on September 2
No, I made only 3 groups of edits on September 2 (and a total of only 4 groups of edits to that article *ever*, at the time of this edit). I believe your error stems from splitting my first 3 edits to the article into two groups, when they were actually all part of the same editing session -- broken only by my brief detour to that article's Talk page to leave multiple comments before I continued editing. You can verify this by checking my contributions for that timeframe. With that error rectified, I have to ask: What's your point? I've been known to make twice that many "groups of edits" on a single article, especially during weekends when I have the time available.
  • An edit such as this one, marked as a copy edit, seems to change some of the disputed language, such as "selectively edited."
Seems to? Oh, it definitely does -- make no mistake about it. Just as this previous edit by Mollskman, also marked as a copy edit, seems to delete that identical disputed language. I could argue that I was just mirroring a similar edit with a similar summary, but if you'll look closer at our two edits, you'll see that my edit also fixed punctuation (note the close-quotation mark addition in the lead) and reference formatting ... you know, actual copy edits -- and was accompanied by a lengthy, simultaneous (within 15 seconds) explanation on the talk page that wouldn't fit in that edit summary. By contrast, Mollskman's edit merely deleted 3 words that he didn't like, under the misdescription of "copy edit". If your concern is about edit summaries matching the edits, then I feel you are addressing the wrong editor. If your actual concern is that I undid another editor's deletion of those words, then please set that concern aside; my return of the deleted sourced wording was at Mollskman's direction. Please review the most recent discussion and let me know if you disagree:
The use of OPSEC has created a selectively edited video critical of Obama. Does the source call it a selectively edited video or does it talk about editing practices as you point out above? Call it what RS have called it and then talk about its editing style and practices. --Mollskman (talk) 23:35, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
The cited reliable source did indeed convey that the OPSEC video was selectively edited, but if you wish the article to also convey more detail about the selective editing that was done, we can certainly do that. My preference was brevity in that section, but let's give your suggestion a go. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
ok. --Mollskman (talk) 12:58, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
I called it what reliable sources called it, as requested by Mollskman. Relevant source links: ABC News and from The News Journal: The group, Special Ops OPSEC (for operational security), says in a selectively edited video that Obama has deliberately leaked classified information about the 2011 SEAL raid that killed Osama bin Laden and has claimed too much credit for it.
  • If you will agree to avoid the article for seven days, the case might close with no sanctions against you.
The case already closed with no sanctions against me. Frankly, had I seen your comment before the case closed, I would have balked and immediately asked you to more clearly explain the reasoning behind your suggestion. (I also would have questioned why you did not make the same "avoid the article" request of the actual guilty party.)
  • If you want to dispute the 3RR, consider commenting in the report.
I've just looked at that report, and I don't see anything in it that I would have disputed, or anything that would benefit from additional comment from me. There was definitely a 3RR violation, and I pretty much agree with everything discussed there.
Okay, I'll remove the wikilawyer hat now. Someone close to me often says, "wearing that hat makes a person's butt look big" — (that's her off-handed way of saying wikilawyering makes a person look like a big ass). She's probably right. Speaking instead as simply an editor to an admin: Thank you for choosing to visit a contributor's talk page with options, rather than reflexively whacking with the block-hammer anyone and everyone even remotely involved in a reported editing squabble. Too many admins do the latter, in my opinion, to the detriment of the project. I can appreciate your approach, even while I disagree (see the above arguments and clarifications) that my editing behavior was in any way inappropriate.
I still intend to edit that article (and eventually, related articles too, as I have reviewed numerous reliable sources related to the subject -- might as well make productive use of the information). Those edits may include the reverting of other edits, but that does not automatically equate to edit warring. Sometimes the revert will be at the behest of the contesting editor, as in this case; or as part of WP:BRD -- and I always push for constructive discussion; and I simply don't cross the 3RR bright line. I don't understand how someone with basic grade school math skills could ever violate 3RR, it's simple arithmetic; "edit-warring" in general, however, is obviously subject to wide interpretation. Something raised enough of a red flag that you were prompted to stop by and leave me a note, Ed, and that still has me concerned. If I'm missing or misunderstanding something, I hope you'll let me know, otherwise I'll consider your note a general caution. Xenophrenic (talk) 09:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I left you a note because you made a dozen edits to the Zero Dark Thirty article during the period when Mollskman was accused of edit warring. My initial thought was that more than one party might need to be sanctioned. You certainly came close enough to the edit war to smell the gunpowder. In that light, your confidence that it is easy to avoid 3RR by simple arithmetic could be misplaced. Regarding 'copy edit', you seem to argue that Mollskman's misuse of that term justifies your own. Mollskman is hardly a good example for others to follow, and you have much more experience. EdJohnston (talk) 14:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Wow - I really threw up that wall of text? I guess I was having a better holiday weekend than I realized. Sorry about that. To clarify in short (I promise!), I understand why I popped up on your radar ... I certainly was there. While I am very confident that I will avoid crossing the 3RR bright line, please don't confuse that with confidence that I will easily avoid being challenged about general edit warring. To the contrary, I have no confidence in that at all, as such challenges are based largely on the unpredictable subjective perceptions of a reviewing admin - and that actually scares me. I tend to smell a lot of gunpowder, especially around this time every 4 years - but I do what I can to avoid becoming collateral damage by engaging in discussions, seeking resolutions and refraining from edits when legitimate concerns are raised, but there is no defense against subjective arbitrariness. Re: 'copy edit' -- perhaps I was unclear; I said I "could argue (his use of the 'copy edit' description justifies my identical use)" but I didn't (because, as you point out, that really is no justification) and instead argued that my edit actually did contain 'copy edits' while Mollskman's edit did not. I concede, however, that I should have added a "see Talk page" to my edit summary to cover the restoral of text. Finally, if you've looked closely at the article talk page, you've probably noticed that my reserves of "good faith" in my interaction with Mollskman have been almost exhausted by his onslaught of personal attacks. It's not helping matters. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Saw your comments on the article's talk page after having been gone for the last 48 hours. Wanted to pass along this article if you hadn't already come across it in your travels... apparently, Fred Rustmann commented on Fox News in 2005 that there really wasn't any inappropriate security breach with regard to the administration and the leaking of Valerie Plame's information. Ironic, isn't it? AzureCitizen (talk) 15:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 10[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited BP, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Department of Justice and Clean Air Act (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

BP mediation[edit]

Hi, I noticed you have been helping at the BP talk page. Would you care to join us in a mediation process? Here is the section at BP talk. petrarchan47tc 06:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Has this been put on the back burner? Xenophrenic (talk) 20:37, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Personal issues kept me from Wikipedia, but it is time to go ahead with this mediation. Since this is my first, would you care to help guide us a bit? petrarchan47tc 19:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
I doubt this is what you want to hear, but on Wikipedia, "Mediation" is rarely more than a ploy to maintain the status quo while a relatively ineffectual bureaucratic process plays itself out to a non-binding conclusion. For that reason, mediation is usually favored by editors when their preferred content appears supported, and their enthusiasm for mediation will decrease in proportion to increased objection to their preferred content. The result of mediation is usually that the article stays in the disputed state for weeks or months (because it's disruptive, some editors will claim, to make "controversial edits" while the Mediation is ongoing), and then no significant agreements are reached. Or if agreements are reached, they could have been achieved much more quickly and easily through simple Talk page discussions. Mediation is, after all, just another Talk page, with one new editor added to the mix with the task of trying to keep the talks focused and organized. But we can go that slow route if that's what folks want. I'll give the Talk page discussions another thorough review and see if I can distill the conflicts down to a few easily manageable issues. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:28, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Sock drawer[edit]

FYI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Festermunk/Archive. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that one was kind of obvious, and I left him a note (as nicely as I could) to that effect on the talk page of Hammerstown3. I'm sure he'll be back. Xenophrenic (talk) 08:55, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

February 2013 block for a disruptive edit[edit]


Please desist from any further personal attacks within Talk:John Kerry military service controversy which were concealed and inserted within a multiple edit. I would have more than adequate WP:POLICY support for deletion of your purely ad hominem comments from the talk page and soliciting administrative intervention per WP:NPA, especially given your most recent block for edit-warring and disruptive editing in this related article. You're on thin ice here. Tread carefully. JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Let's be very clear here. Are you accusing Xenophrenic of violating WP:NPA in the linked diff above because he said he was "editing against POV-warriors" and referenced your "occasional forays" to "push egregious POVs", JakeInJoisey? He made those comments after your earlier comment here, in which you said "...your POV-warrior editing" and commented that you were making "occasional foray (like this one) in an attempt to correct only the most patently egregious POV editorial malfeasance". If you consider those remarks to be personal attacks JakeInJoisey, it's clear that you initiated them. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 14:25, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm on thin ice? That's Jake for you. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Courtesy notice[edit]

Hi, User:Nathan Johnson proposed a topic ban on you, adding you to an ongoing discussion onWP:ANI, and forgot to tell you - KillerChihuahua 17:39, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, fun. I've been tip-toeing around that mess, being careful not to jump into it, but as a co-editor of the subject article, I guess it was inevitable that someone would try to drag me into it. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:47, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Cheer up. No one is calling for your desysoping for taking the matter to ANI. :-D KillerChihuahua 19:12, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
I was going to say that no one will take the suggestion to desysop you seriously, as it was clearly nothing more than a pointy exclamation by North8000. Then Arthur Rubin climbed on that hobby-horse and kicked it with his spurs, apparently thinking it would go somewhere. I swear he's got a hair-trigger sometimes. Weird. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:55, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

You may have missed it[edit]

But I archived the sub-page because I filed at RFAR - Feel free to make a statement there, but please don't continue the discussion at the (now closed) ANI page, thanks. KillerChihuahua 06:46, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, KillerChinchilla! Well, I noticed now :) I was in the middle of responding to North's remarks when you closed the ANI thread (got an edit conflict, and did a routine cut&paste to the section before realizing you had actually closed off the whole discussion). He still hasn't provided a single diff wherein the evil behavior he claims is exemplified. He and I do often disagree, but I think he's confusing "not conceding to all his preferred POV edits" with "extreme tendentious editing and nastiness". Xenophrenic (talk) 07:17, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Yeah I thought it might have been something like that, that's why I said "you may have missed it" - I see that now people are upset I closed it, but closing such a thread when it's taken to ArbCom is fairly common practice. KillerChihuahua 13:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Ne Ent has unclosed it now.
Also; I'm never going to hear the end of KillerChinchilla, am I? :p KillerChihuahua 15:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Maybe KillerChinchilla is your evil twin? All of North's harshest comments and criticisms were directed at KillerChinchilla, after all. Meanwhile, I can't find fault in any actions or conduct by KillerChihuahua.
I'm waiting to see what direction the ArbCom takes. If it focuses on uncivil behavior and battleground interaction between editors, I'll probably stay out of it (unless dragged kicking & screaming into the fray). That seems to be at the heart of your complaint, correct? If, however, the ArbCom focuses on somehow enabling article improvement, which several commenters say is the deeper problem, I'll very likely jump in. However, I don't know if that is within the scope of ArbCom's abilities, and I'm not familiar with what tools ArbCom might have to help clear the roadblocks to article improvement.
I recall a situation between North and I from almost 2 years ago. Tell me if this sounds familiar. He accused me of tendentious editing at the TP movement article, specifically gaming the rules to push a POV. I requested that he support his false charge with diffs; he refused. So I dragged him to WP:WQA and requested that he put up or shut up. He again refused to cite actual examples, and instead claimed that his accusation was based on careful consideration over a long period of editing. Since that, too, was untrue, I pushed him to produce any supporting evidence whatsoever, or retract his attack. After he tried to characterize his attack as "low key" and no big deal, he finally redacted his attack. He probably doesn't want me chiming in at ArbCom, as I just might speak against him. I can work with him on article improvement, however. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:55, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
It's deja vu all over again! (Yogi Berra quote). I have registered KillerChinchilla and you may read about the differences herel but I assure you I have been accused of many shortcomings. Just check this out! KillerChihuahua 22:44, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
OMG, you are truly the scourge of Wikipedia!! ;) Seriously though, many hits in a site search only shows active participation, nothing more. I'd wager accusers are more often than not confusing a Chihuahua's "short size" with "shortcomings". I hope you are feeling better and being well taken care of. Best regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Thoughts / idea[edit]

All along at the TPM article I sincerely want an article that is as quality and neutral as it can be. And (right or wrong) I sincerely believe that you have done the most work to POV the article. (But also, during our interactions I have seen glimpses of you wanting a quality article, so you are someone who I still haven't been able to figure out yet.) And my ONLY goal was to give you a nudge to improve that situation by just a bit. I also really don't want to document a case against you as that mindless mess there has absolutely forced me to start doing. With respect to myself, I am quite confident how a thorough analysis and review will end up, but am not so confident that this mindless mess that has been unleashed will not do a lot of pointless and unnecessary harm to a lot of folks and a lot of relationships, and a whole lot of wasted time from lives that are too short. And that even includes concern for the people that I've been butting heads with...there are no really evil people at the TPM article. Since the TPM article will be pretty much hopeless for a long time (unless some dramatic solution is adopted) to me even efforts there are secondary at this point. So I am proposing an idea that a bunch of the central folks come together to end this current conflagration. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Skipping to your last sentence, I also offered a path out of "this current conflagration", but I see by your latest edits that you have effectively declined and wish to carry on. Xenophrenic (talk) 13:47, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I missed that offered path. Where is it? And no, my last edits were not indicating a desire to carry on. A part of them are just to keep you from scrambling up my work (that I was forced into doing) by putting posts within mine. And again, it is not what I wanted to do, I was forced into it by several people who said that making the statement without doing that (diffs and building the case) is an "offense". My agenda there is only to establish that my comment was reasonable, which is what I am being forced into doing. Maybe I've done that and can stop building further....I'll try that. So my post above is still my current thoughts and idea. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:02, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
As I mentioned at the ANI subpage, no one is forcing you to do it. It's "the law", so to speak. Wikipedia policy says that you can't run around and call people POV-pushers (or any other caustic, serious charge) and not support your charge with clear evidence. I even linked the specific policy for you. If, as you said above, you "sincerely believe that [I] have done the most work to POV the article", then why have you not provided clear evidence to back that up? Instead, you've provided diffs that only show I've properly edited the article, without any indication of POV-pushing. Oh no, Xeno reverted an editor who tried to swap out a reliably sourced description for an inferior opinion source! That's not POV-pushing, it's standard editing convention. Oh no, when an editor swapped out a numeric vote count for a percentage count, claiming it was more informative, Xeno edited it so that both count values were displayed, to be even more informative still! That's not POV-pushing, it's article improvement. Oh no, Xeno removed a blurb about a 2007 presidential campaign fundraiser event completely unrelated to the not-then-existant Tea Party movement! That's not POV-pushing, that's proper article improvement. And it's not just me; other editors have supported each of those edits. Maybe that's a hint, North. I suggested that you just retract the charge, and we'll pick up from there and try to do something productive with the article. That was the offered path; provide the required clear evidence, or withdraw the charge and free up our time for something more productive.
As for the formatting of our discussion, I prefer my comments to immediately follow that upon which I'm commenting. You didn't object when I commented after your first diff. You didn't object to the same thing in the subsequent Goethean section. Even Arthur moved his comments back after you moved them. No matter; I'll conduct my responses and discussion in a separate section. Xenophrenic (talk) 15:14, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
I'd be willing to say that it (and everything involving anybody accusing anybody of anything) is old news to leave behind and not discuss further. . North8000 (talk) 15:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
I interpret that to mean that you still don't see anything wrong with making unsubstantiated attacks against fellow editors. The options are 1) support the accusations or 2) retract the accusations. There is no third option of "make unsubstantiated personal attacks, then merrily leave them behind without evidence or further discussion" -- not in a civil society, anyway. The funny thing is, had you asked my opinion on the demeanor of the initial discussions in that small window (Feb 11-12) between you and Goethean, I would have defended you, as Goethean's discourse seemed more heated, while yours was more restrained and content-oriented. But then you started spouting your routine bullshit, which quickly killed any motivation I had to join in on your behalf. Later, you outright lied, and included me by name in that lie, which is not something I am inclined to let you dismiss as "old news" and try to walk away from, no matter how much you'd now like to do so. I agree with you that "there are no really evil people at the TPM article", which is why I haven't joined the majority voters calling for your head under the "Topic ban North8000" header at ANI, but I will certainly pursue this through a full ArbCom if necessary. Sincerely, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
What I had in mind is taking it only to the point of showing that what I said was not unreasonable, not to the point of proven, and I can stop work on it if we're there now. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:34, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Baseless = unreasonable, so you have a long way to go. I was hoping that your complete failure to provide even a single example of extreme tendentious editing and nastiness might send a signal to you that you need to reevaluate your perception. I now see my expectations were set too high. Reasonable people, when faced with the realization that they cannot "prove" their accusation (and in fact see their accusation disproven), acknowledge their mistake, rather than backpeddle and try to insist the false accusation was "not unreasonable". Is that some sort of face-saving measure?
  • And (right or wrong) I sincerely believe that you have done the most work to POV the article. --North8000
Even with your "right or wrong" equivocation, and your euphemistic "believe" wording, your false accusation is not only unreasonable, it is offensive. Sincerely, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:26, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


Hi, you suggested that my opinions had been rejected countless times on RSN. Since I have only been to RSN twice in five years I presume you mean that my opinion regarding MMfA as not a reliable source has been rejected countless times. Would it be possible for you to share the link to the MMfA consensus at RSN. I have been reading the RSN discussions I could find in the archives and it is a hard slog finding that. If you could help me, or point me in the right direction that would be great. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:07, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

As a note, the diff you shared on the talk page spoke of a consensus but didn't show a diff to such. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I was probably referring to the most recent discussion on the reliability of MMfA that I found. However, if you wish to challenge the reliability of the actual source in use, I'll gladly join you in a discussion of your concerns at WP:RSN. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 22:03, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
No, that's great. I am truly interested in how MMfA fits as a RS. I'll try to use your dif as a guidepost in my readings to hopefully better understanding if and how mmfa works for RS. As relates to the WSI ref, I'm fine with you leaving it in. Thanks for the quick response.Capitalismojo (talk) 22:33, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Mark Lane (author), the "conspiracy theorist"[edit]

Hi Xenophrenic. I like your user page! ('Aptly identifies, I think, the m.o. of a lot of self-perceived article-keepers.) 'Noticed you've been active on the Mark Lane article. So far, I've only edited that story for mechanics. Anyway, do you have an opinion rel the assertion on the first line of this article that Lane is a "conspiracy theorist"? I'd likely be enlightened and swayed by your opinion, whatever it is. My initial impression is user Laborinvain's statement in talk is compelling. (His/Her reward for his/her efforts so far has been to get blocked for 3RR with a special allegation of sockpuppetry or maybe "reverse sockpuppetry" LOL.) I'd compare it to an edit I made over at Plaxico Burress, where a prior editor was calling Burress a "felon" in the first couple sentences; I changed it to "was convicted of a felony." The distinction is Burress indisputably IS a felon. But I still thought it violated WP:NPOV. Specifically, does it seem to you "conspiracy theorist" stated as fact w/o qualification violates WP:NPOV? If I was going to try a fix, I wouldn't propose total deletion, only that it should be introduced lower down in the article and phrased something like, "Lane has been labeled by many people who disagree with his views, especially rel the JFK assassination, as a conspiracy theorist." As of now, I see WP:verifiability but not, however, WP:NPOV. Regards, Paavo273 (talk) 07:35, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Howdy, Paavo273. Before studying the matter in detail (which I intend to do soon, by the way), my cursory observation is that a reasonable, policy-compliant case can be made for applying the "conspiracy theorist" description to Lane. Whether that case would be stronger than a counter-case made based on WP:BLP policy concerns, I can't say yet. One thing I notice is missing is Lane's personal opinion about the label. Has he denied it, or objected to it? Have reliable sources questioned or refuted the application of such a label to Lane? If so, a much stronger case could be made to remove the contextless-descriptor from the article lead, and treat it instead in the body of the article as you have proposed. I'll see what I can find. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Bill Maher[edit]

I've watched how you have monitored this article. You've done such a good job I haven't even bothered to edit lately. Maybe in the case of obvious vandalism. So your recent rewrite was something I was thinking should have been undertaken. Had I done it, it would have been similar but not nearly as well done as you did it. In other words, keep up the good work. Trackinfo (talk) 00:46, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


Sorry to break to here, but you may have noticed my talk page is not exactly set up for extended discussions for the last few months. Anyway, you're right; despite attempting to scan the entire consolidated article last night, I somehow managed to miss the portion you mention.

In addition to the source itself, I'm still not thrilled by the phrasing of the contested paragraph, which – especially with the placement of "however" – seems to be a clear example of synthesis, and possibly an example of undue weight if you notice the link supporting the phrase is a letter referring to a membership list for one local SCV camp, and includes plans for a similar recruitment campaign targeted at Sons of the American Revolution members. (An alternative phrasing such as "Although units of the Ku Klux Klan have been known to actively recruit SCV members in the past, the SCV condemns..." is equally accurate, but would give a completely different impression.) However, since you're currently at 3RR and I'm at 2RR, I'll try to play fair and not revert again, but the paragraph definitely needs revision, possibly with wider discussion on the article's talk page. Fat&Happy (talk) 22:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Perspective / TPM dustup[edit]

Although I don't mince words on the reality of the situation, long story short I actually LIKE you, for many reasons. And, if it comes up, I promise to adamantly oppose any sanctions against you (such as even a 1 minute ban from the article) beyond possibly a warning. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:12, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

TPM link[edit]

Thanks for the interesting link to the USA today column you put in the talk section. One of the great things about Wikipedia is the things you stumble upon. That was worth reading. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:48, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


Your user page is great, the sockpuppet one is still making me laugh two minutes down the line lol :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 18:12, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Ooops, laughing too much I deleted what I originally came to say.

I just edited the opening para of ATF gunwalking scandal - it was posted as a link on someones facebook page and when I read it it looked a little squiffy as it seemed to be in reverse order.

Can you please have a quick look at it and check it is ok. Thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 18:18, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

your userpage[edit]

I enjoyed it so much, I thought I'd note that you misspelled glitch under 3rr. Keep up the good work. – ʎɑzy ɗɑƞ 05:46, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Tea Party movement Moderated discussion[edit]

Nice Cup of Tea.jpg

A discussion is taking place at Talk:Tea Party movement/Moderated discussion to get consensus on finding and addressing the main points of contention on the article, and moving the article to a stable and useful condition. As you are a significant contributor to the article, your involvement in the discussion would be valued and helpful. As the discussion is currently looking at removing a substantial amount of material, it would be appropriate for you to check to see what material is being proposed for removal, in case you have any concerns about this. If you feel you would rather not get involved right now, that is fine; however, if you later decide to get involved and directly edit the article to reverse any consensus decisions, that might be seen as disruptive. Re-opening discussion, however, may be acceptable; though you may find few people willing to re-engage in such a discussion, and if there are repeated attempts to re-open discussion on the same points, that also could be seen as disruptive. The best time to get involved is right now. SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:30, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

  • comment Xenophrenic, though I generally am in agreement with your positions on the TPm article, I fail to see why you have been unwilling to participate in the mediated discussion. It's sort of an effort to turn over a new leaf, in one sense. I would venture to say that it might not reflect well on your editing disposition, but I don't want to be accused of canvassing you here to start participating there, so I will state--for the record(for what it's worth)--that I think it is probably too late anyway.
At any rate, I just don't understand your reasoning, and I am posting this message so that you might reflect on that, and comment here, if you like.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 17:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Howdy, Ubikwit! Please don't interpret my light presence at the moderated discussion as "unwillingness" (or as another editor mischaracterized it, "refuses to participate") ... it's simply a matter of time constraints right now. I know it's there; I have it watchlisted and have been keeping an eye on it, I've even commented there - I've just been juggling quite a bit lately. I will definitely be participating more very soon, don't worry. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:35, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Responding to Talk page comments[edit]

Xenophrenic, do not redact my comments. Redact your own to match mine. I meant for my comment to be just as I wrote them. Do not break them up again. Malke 2010 (talk) 15:13, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Malke. I haven't redacted your comments. I did respond to each of your comments, following WP:Indentation and Help:Using_talk_pages#Indentation. What seems to be the problem? Xenophrenic (talk) 15:21, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Since you haven't responded, I've left your comments untouched as of your last edited. I still wished to respond to your comments, however, so I've copied them and responded to them below. Hopefully that is acceptable. It's non-standard, and it needlessly clutters Arthur's space, but your comments are still there "unbroken". Xenophrenic (talk) 15:32, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
(e/c)You know exactly what you did. You moved and separated my comments. And then you edit warred when I put my comments back. If you want to reply to an editor's comments, then address the editor and any specific points in your answer. You act like you're taking an editor to task when you split up their comments, as if no one else deserves respect on Wikipedia, only you. Only you have the answer. Only you know all the facts. You're no more, no less than any other editor here. Look at what you did to Arthur Rubin. He simply spoke the truth. You edit warred over his comment. When that didn't work, you went to his talk page and demanded he remove his comment. You dumped reams of nonsense argument on his talk page. And then when you didn't get your demands met, you took him to ANI, where you didn't get anywhere because three admins immediately recognized the value of your complaint. Yet, when you are asked to remove your frequent personal attacks and incivil comments, you claim it's the other editor who misunderstood you. Just a big misunderstanding, you say. And then you quote a Wikipedia rule. Here are a few you might want to review: WP:CIVIL, WP:HARASS, WP:BATTLE and WP:WAR. Malke 2010 (talk) 16:13, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I know exactly what I did. That much is true. The challenge here is to decipher what you think I did, instead. I responded to your comments on a Talk page. I left your comments in the order in which you posted them, and I responded to them in that order. Using standard Talk page convention, replying immediately after the signed comment, and without splitting up any comments. If you would like me to respond in a different, special, manner to your comments, you could try asking nicely -- Instead of demanding that I formally address you, and reiterate "any specific points" in what would otherwise be a simple reply.
As for the Arthur Rubin matter, yes, "look what I did to him". He made an accusation about an editor's behavior without providing evidence. That is a text-book violation of WP:NPA. I immediately, politely requested (no demands) that he provide diffs to substantiate his accusation, or to please redact it. He refused; that's when you decided to editwar, Malke (and you even deleted my comments to Collect w/o noting it); and I raised the issue at ANI; and he has since redacted his personal attack. I will do nothing differently if he again makes an unsubstantiated attack. "He simply spoke the truth", you say? How would I know? He refused to show me what he was talking about.
Your "frequent personal attacks" and "incivil comments" remark is unfounded. Please cite an actual personal attack I've made, and I'll strike, redact or delete it immediately. I'm serious about that. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:10, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
And I didn't know there was s time limit on my response. That's another thing about you. Your demands are time sensitive. Malke 2010 (talk) 16:13, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
I place no time limits, Malke, and I "request", I don't "demand". For example, I'm still waiting for Arthur's proof of his accusation that, "certain tendentious editors are intentionally misconstruing my !vote". I know he just made that up, and he knows he just made that up, and he's ignoring all requests to substantiate it while hoping it will fade away into the archives. No time limits, Malke. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:10, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
And yes, your comments do needlessly clutter Arthur's talk page. That we can agree on. Malke 2010 (talk) 16:16, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Strange, I didn't say that. Your requirement that I edit Talk pages in a non-standard way specifically proscribed by you (Do not break them up again...) is what is causing the clutter. I can't tell if you are just habitually misreading things, or intentionally misconveying what you have read, but I've noticed the same thing when we discuss information sources you are citing -- with increasing frequency. I hope it is temporary. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:10, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Regardless of whether your comments are accurate and/or personal attacks, you do edit talk pages in a non-standard way, and Malke was asking you to do it in a standard way. Your "new" version (copying the comments before replying to them) is also non-standard. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:51, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Arthur's right. And don't change the title of this section again. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:10, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
I disagree with Arthur's opinion (the first sentence, anyway; he's correct on the second sentence). I put my replies immediately below (and indented) the comment to which I am replying. That is standard. Malke, I respectfully request that you not visit my Talk page again. I don't feel that your most recent interactions here are promoting a collaborative editing environment. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:24, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Advancing the Moderated discussion[edit]

Please see Talk:Tea_Party_movement/Moderated_discussion#Taking_stock. Cheers.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:24, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

As you are probably already aware[edit]

If you've checked your notifications, then you know that I was having a little fun with an old Abbott and Costello routine on my talk page. I have been accused of being your sock, so I told my accuser, fine, leave "me" a message on Xenophrenic's talk page. So I can play the part better, please leave me some tips and tricks on how to "be" you. :) Viriditas (talk) 12:52, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Content discussion, resumed[edit]

The discussion in the "Content discussion, resumed" section got out of hand, so I have closed it. A number of contributors to that discussion wandered away from commenting on the content into commenting on the contributor. I would ask that everyone make a special effort to word what they say carefully. If someone is making comments about you, please do not respond with comments such as "That pretty much makes the whole of your comment nonsense, and your thinly veiled attempt to conflate the two insulting", as such comments tend to aggravate the situation rather than calm it down.

At this point it might be better if anyone has concerns about the behaviour of anyone else in the discussion, that they bring those concerns direct to me rather than raise them, however annoyed they feel, on the discussion page. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:12, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Here is an RfC/U regarding your behavior: [27] Please participate. kind regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 07:55, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Here are the minimum requirements for certification of an RfC/U. I have emphasized in boldface the portions which are applicable to our efforts to resolve this dispute:

Before requesting community comment, at least two editors must have contacted the user on their talk page, or the talk pages involved in the dispute, and tried but failed to resolve the problem. Any RfC not accompanied by evidence showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute may be deleted after 48 hours as "uncertified". The evidence, preferably in the form of diffs, should not simply show the dispute itself, but should show attempts to find a resolution or compromise. The users certifying the dispute must be the same users who were involved in the attempt to resolve it.

I encourage you to participate. regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:25, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
If you wish to encourage me to participate, please create a proper RFC in which I can participate. What you have created is a page of unsubstantiated allegations and name-calling, with no evidence to back it up. How is a person supposed to respond? The minimum requirements are applicable to your efforts, not just the portions you emphasize in boldface. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 16:26, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Xeno. You are aware that all the commenting/endorsing editors where canvassed [with non-neutral language]. Especially this post seems to me quite improper and concerning.TMCk (talk) 16:19, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that ... just one of many problems so far. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:26, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Okay, now please review the comments by previously uninvolved editors User:NE Ent and User:Nyttend at the WP:ANI thread you've started, and revert your removal of the RfC/U from "certified" to "candidates." I respectfully suggest that you address the allegations on their merits, rather than trying to Wikilawyer your way out of it. regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Allegations are a dime per dozen; please give the allegations actual merit by substantiating them. Otherwise the unsubstantiated allegations amount to nothing more than a whisper campaign. Seriously, P&W, if your intent is legitimately to affect a "change of behavior", can you at least give specific examples of the behavior you would like to see changed? If you could at least bring the RFC in line with the minimum requirements, I'll certify it myself -- at least then I'll have something to which to respond. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 22:02, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I have followed the RFC/U as you were on my watch list for some reason and I've had similar problems with Phoenix and Winslow.. The "evidence" P&W has posted is ridiculous. The first two bullet points are little more than you reverting BLP violations. For example, the "reliably sourced quotation" was a false quote cobbled together from parts of four different quotes to make Weiner look bad. It was also from an opinion piece when in the very next bullet point P&W says an opinion piece is not a reliable source for something else. Later P&W states that "a left-leaning, local Pennsylvania website called 'Politics PA'" is the source for "walk back" when it is actually the only source for "clarify." His entire list is full of errors like this. You need to point out that admins will have to check not only every diff but also check P&W's claims against the actual references. I'm continually amazed that he hasn't yet been permanently banned. I believe most editors would have been had they behaved half as badly. Regards Wayne (talk) 09:09, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Do You Know there is a WP:RFC/U on you?[edit]

The link can be found, here.

Administrators' noticeboard discussion on WP:RFC/U on user:Xenophrenic[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. THe Link is here.

AN/I WIKIHOUNDING by Collect?[edit]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement[edit]

The arbitration case on the Tea Party movement is about to be suspended to the end of the month. When the Committee reconvenes in June to consider the case, the Committee may dismiss the case with no further action, or may decide on sanctions. You have been named in the case, and if there are to be sanctions, you may well be involved in those. If you feel there is evidence you would like the Committee to consider in relation to your involvement in the case, please approach the case Clerk, Callanecc, who will advise you what to do. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:47, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement suspended[edit]

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that the Tea Party Movement case be suspended until the end of June 2013 to allow time for the Tea Party movement/Moderated discussion. Pages relating to the Tea Party movement, in any namespace, broadly construed, are placed under discretionary sanctions until further notice. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 15:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:13, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

SOPA and censorship[edit]

Would you mind discussing why you think it's NOT appropriate for the SOPA article to be categorized as censorship? I agree with User:Jarble that it should be so categorized, and I explained why in Talk:Stop Online Piracy Act#Category: Internet censorship in the United States?. Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 10:05, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you![edit]

A small cup of coffee.JPG Hang in there. Notice that it isn't tea. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:48, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Tea Party movement discussion[edit]

Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
The Original Barnstar for positive contributions to the Tea Party movement discussions. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Xen, could you come up with an agenda version and post it before the weekend? It might help get things moving over there again. In the meantime, I'll stop by Barnes and Noble and get one of those pocket guides. Malke 2010 (talk) 16:51, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Xen, maybe you can be the one to come up with the one that gets implemented. North8000 (talk) 18:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
We'll give you a Barnstar. Malke 2010 (talk) 23:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
... And brownies. Don't make us grovel.

Chocolate brownies.jpg TETalk 09:08, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Good work on compiling the info and composing that text. Though I still think it needs some work, it's probably the version that we should try to have posted, as it contains the most information per RS. I've made a couple of minor adjustments, so you should probably check those out to see if they meet with your approval, and then vote on it, with the aim of seeing whether it will be able to have the edit actioned soon after asking Silk Tork to evaluate the situation. One of the adjustments I made was in response to a criticism raised by P&W, but I don't know whether that will suffice to gain his approval, as he has voiced other concerns as well.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:52, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
Thanks for all of the good and hard work putting that version together. I supported it and think it will directly or indirectly help move us forward. North8000 (talk) 19:50, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Bill Maher[edit]

It would appear that Template:Infobox comedian does not have a religion parameter and is not displayed in the infobox. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 08:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Version 15 at TPm moderated discussion[edit]

I trimmed a few words (714 --> 695) in attempting to improve the readability, for what it's worth. I removed the sentence about the IRS incident in the process, as it seems like more of a reaction to a specific event than an agenda point tacked on as an afterthought. Moreover, the IRS incident has a separate section in the article. The main issue at hand would appear to lie in the fact that the first couple of crucial paragraphs you added have been omitted from subsequent suggested versions. Is it necessary to present some sort of a case for inclusion? The basis for inclusion would seem to be self evident. Anyway, take a look at the slight reworking and make any appropriate adjustments. --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 10:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

deleted comment[edit]

I've deleted my comment until the comments are put back in order. I'd appreciate it if you would remove my deleted comment that you are using. You know very well that 1) I don't care for my comments to be parsed like that, and 2) you are edit warring over my edit which I have removed. Please stop. Malke 2010 (talk) 18:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Malke. Please use care when rearranging comments on Talk pages. In this edit of yours, while you were trying to move a comment by Ubikwit to another location, you snipped a portion of my comment off as well, and stuck it with Ubikwit's, making the rest of my comment confusing. In a later edit you deleted a portion of my comment without explanation. Deleting all or part of another editor's comment is forbidden, unless you are deleting a personal attack or absolute BLP violation.

I saw on the Talk page where you said, "PLEASE STOP DISRUPTING THE EDITS BY DISPLACING EDITOR'S COMMENTS; DO NOT USE AGGRESSIVE TONES AND LANGUAGE AND PLEASE USE WP:INDENT". I'm not sure what portions of that may have been directed at me, as all my comments definitely use appropriate indentation, and I haven't used aggressive tones and language -- yet you appear to be shuffling my comments around along with those of other editors. I always follow WP:Indentation and Help:Using_talk_pages#Indentation when replying to other editors to facilitate ease of comprehension for readers, instead of just posting linearly by timestamp, which can result in a jumbled mess.

I know your attempts to refactor the Talk page were made in good faith, but I fail to see how your most recent edits are helpful. You left a note on my Talk page saying "I don't care for my comments to be parsed like that" -- can you be more specific as to what you are referring? I responded to a specific remark that you made about Hecker the way I always respond: I'll quote (or sometimes paraphrase, if it is very lengthy) that remark, followed by my comment or response. This is standard Wikipedia practice.

Let's fix this issue now, Malke, before it spins out of control. Just you and me. Explain to me in clear terms what it is about my edits that has set you off, and I'll do my best to address that in my future editing, even if it means I have to custom-tailor any responses directed to you in a special way to avoid these conflicts in the future. Fair enough? Sincerely, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:07, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Xen, the problem was the edit conflicts. I ran into several. I do see where I snipped off part of yours and that was totally inadvertent. My comment regarding Heckler is not accurate as you have it on the mod discussion right now. In that post I was talking about Heckler being the one to start the thing, not Armey. But you've cut that off. Also, my original comments about this to you specifically were in another thread. My other comment was to North, not you. Keeping these comments together and not displacing what another editor has already responded to, is essential, especially on that page. I'll come back in a few moments. I'm going to check on one of the comments before I also mention it. Also, I was not refactoring the talk page. I was attempting to restore the comments that were being displaced by both you and Ubikwit. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
And my request was not directed at you other than the comment displacement. In fact, when I saw your comment in that second location I thought perhaps you'd posted to the wrong place. That might still be the case, you might just be caught up in the moment. There was heavy traffic for a while on the page. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:24, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
I think when discussions degenerate into argumentative bickering, as it has just now at the mod discussion, some editors resort to sniping at each other instead of trying to get the discussion back on track. As for me, I prefer a more friendly atmosphere. Do you see where one editor complained about another editor copying a signature stamp from one Talk page to another Talk page here? See how that blossomed into a big argument on SilkTork's Talk page? When I see something like that, I usually prefer to just shrug and ignore it (as I am doing right now, since you did the exact same thing and copied my timestamp from another Talk page to this one, making it appear I've posted "here"). Little problems that are not due to ill-intent are best ignored, in my opinion.
Regarding your comment about Hecker, here is what you said:
It was all Ryan Heckler. He used the internet to generate ideas. He took 1000 of those ideas, narrowed them down to 50, and then he asked Dick Armey to help him sort the 50. But the prominence given to Armey in that paragraph makes it seem otherwise. Who made the home run? The batter or the fan in the stands who yells, "Swing!"? Big difference. It's undue weight, it's slanted. And I'd like to say for one, I think it's time editors here were relieved of accusations of obstructionism and taunts about taking behaviour issues to Silk Tork. I think we need a petition to ArbCom.
I responded to your assertion that "It was all Ryan Heckler", which I explained was incorrect. (And his name is HECKER ;-) ) Even Hecker denies that (see the interview video I linked to you), and says he was working with others "every step of the way". You made a good and valid point that mentioning Armey by name, while referring to Hecker as merely "a conservative activist" gives undue prominence to Armey, but that isn't the point I was addressing - and that's why I didn't include more of your comment in my quote. The point of my comment was that Hecker was not working alone when the request for plank suggestions was put out on the internet. Hecker was not working alone in any subsequent step, either. So you see, I didn't misrepresent what you said when I quoted you saying "It was all Ryan Heckler". I was simply disagreeing with what you said. Yes, Hecker "started the thing", as in he had the original idea to create a "Contract" right after Obama was elected in November, 2008, before the Tea Party movement existed. But it wasn't all him after that.
I posted my response where I wanted it, and you are correct that I placed it "before" other comments -- but that is not against Talk page editing guidelines, and is actually standard practice. (Look at the guideline links I posted on your Talk page and notice how the comments do not always flow chronologically by time stamp). If you find that problematic for you, I can try to come up with a different approach specifically for my responses to you. As for the edit conflicts, I'm afraid there is nothing I can do about that ... and I agree that they are a pain in the arse. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:25, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't think you meant to disrupt anything. Also, I do keep writing Heckler, I don't know why. I took my info straight from the Tea party movement article because as I recall there was a bit of an argument about the Armey bits and that was how it was settled. Since that edit was stable, I thought it would help. I'll restore my comment if you'll also allow North's comment to be put back in its place. You can then @Malke right below North since he's agreeing with me. And please leave off the "It was all Heckler," bit again. Then we can sort that discussion. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:36, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Xenophrenic. You have new messages at Malke 2010's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.


Sorry for undoing your edit even after your explanation on the Sam Harris article.

I seriously want to create an "Apology Barnstar" to give to you.

What do you have to do in order to make one?

Yster76 (talk) 18:58, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

I've closed the report and declined to block you. But please take care to adhere to 1RR restrictions on pages and avoid edit warring, or you may be blocked in the future. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:30, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Formally added as party to an ArbCom case[edit]

Just so you know, you have been formally added to the Tea Party Movement ArbCom case as an involved party.

For the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 18:27, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Tea Party movement case - final decision motion[edit]

This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a motion (which affects you) has been proposed to close the Tea Party movement case. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 01:00, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Wow! Malke 2010 (talk) 23:13, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Xenophrenic. You have new messages at Malke 2010's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.


Xen, I looked at your contribs to see if you were about and I noticed one contrib in particular. A revert on the Chuck E. Cheese talk? You are a wild man. Malke 2010 (talk) 00:57, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

more messages[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Xenophrenic. You have new messages at Malke 2010's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement closed[edit]

An arbitration case, in which you were named as party, has now closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

Pages related to the Tea Party movement, broadly construed, are placed under discretionary sanctions. This sanction supersedes the existing community sanctions.

The current community sanctions are lifted.

Goethean (talk · contribs), North8000 (talk · contribs), Malke 2010 (talk · contribs), Xenophrenic (talk · contribs), Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs), Ubikwit (talk · contribs), Phoenix and Winslow (talk · contribs) are indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to the Tea Party movement, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed to the Arbitration Committee after no less than six months have passed from the closing of this case.

Collect (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from all pages relating to the Tea Party movement, broadly construed. This topic ban will expire after six months from the date this case is closed on.

Xenophrenic (talk · contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, Collect (talk · contribs) anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions).

Snowded (talk · contribs) and Phoenix and Winslow (talk · contribs) are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, each other anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions).

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 07:04, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Chuck E. Cheese[edit]

I was driving through downtown Long Beach and noticed a new Chuck E. Cheese just opened and thought of you. :) Malke 2010 (talk) 05:19, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Wow, I really need to pay closer attention to my Talk page. I just now noticed this comment, sorry. I hope all is well with you! I've had rather limited and sporadic interaction with Wikipedia since ... well, the start of the TPm arb, actually, but I anticipate having a bit more free time soon. Hmmm, I see the Chuck E. Cheese article needs some serious work. (Between you and me, you'd never see me in a novelty chain pizza joint like CEC, as I consider myself quite the gourmet pizza connoisseur!)  ;-) Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:02, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 15[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ben Smith. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Helen Caldicott[edit]

I was just wondering where the February 20th came from in the reference you added. I don't see that date on the webpage and the retrieval date in any case would be today. Thanks in advance for your response. --Daffydavid (talk) 01:26, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, David. The Feb. 20 date isn't a retrieval date, which I didn't add. It's just one of several "page-updated" dates provided by tools (domain origin, website archiving, Google page cache indexing...) indicating the existance of that "advisory-council" information at that date. I was unfortunately unable to find the exact date the webpage was created, or the earliest date when Caldicott was added to the webpage. She has certainly been on their Advisory Council since before February 2014. Here's a 2012 video of her, for example, which describes her in the info-tab as a member of their Advisory Council. If you can find more specific information, please don't hesitate to add it. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 17:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)