User talk:MookieG

Altering redirects

You seem to have clear ideas about where certain search terms should be redirected. You're very welcome to express those ideas, to get support for them, and, when it's clear that they have support, to change the redirects accordingly. Please argue for the changes in one or other of the relevant talk pages, perhaps linking to your argument from other talk pages. Please do not alter a redirect until it is clear that you have won agreement to make the alteration. -- Hoary (talk) 02:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

February 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page List of Keith Olbermann's special comments has been reverted.
Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. I removed the following link(s): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKofFIveJG4 (matching the regex rule \byoutube\.com). If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy and therefore probably should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file. Video links are also strongly deprecated by our guidelines for external links, partly because they're useless to people with slow internet connections.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 19:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Your lack of civility

If you are going to insist that your fellow Wikipedians write "like 10-year-olds" it might be a good idea if you learn the difference between "its" and "it's" - something I picked up long before I was 10. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I should've attended one of Illinois's many fine educational institutions, LOL. Now fix it you *#%$@&*! MookieG (talk) 19:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Never been to Illinois, and don't give a shit what their preferred usage is. That being said, either should be acceptable using the normal apostrophe of possession rules. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

On quoting

This edit was somewhat inappropriate, in that it assigns responsibility to Obama in a way that the original quote does not, neither does it use an ellipsis to indicate that the quote was partial. I'm assuming that it was unintentional, not an attempt to insert your own point of view into the article. I've filled out the quote, so no further action is needed. I agree that the complete quote is better than the partial quote, as the version prior to your edits indicates a purely xenophobic and/or racist rationale, while the complete quote takes the economy and political rhetoric into account. Please, in the future, be a little more careful when making edits such as these, particularly when directly quoting a source. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 19:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't appreciate your underhanded attempt to accuse me of maliciously omitting part of the quote while claiming that you are assuming good faith. Inserting that Obama's opponents have used terms like socialist and fascist to describe his agenda offered nothing to this article. Not that it isn't relevant in many other articles. What's this about assigning blame? I didn't know it was our duty as editors to assign blame. Blame for what? Are you assigning the blame on political opponents of Obama? It's a very odd concern for you, in my opinion. MookieG (talk) 20:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

For your review...

Per our discussions on a relevant topic, I thought these articles might be of interest to you: WaPo & Gawker opinion. I'm hoping the WaPo ombudsman follows through on the push for additional reporting, and I'm requesting restraint on the editwar front in the meantime. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 01:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

D.C. Douglas

Hey MookieG,

Did you notice that there is a cover-up of Douglas' actions at his page? Dwain (talk) 15:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on User talk:TruthfulPerson. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Morenooso (talk) 22:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I understand as best displayed my mentioning of the 3rd revert of Xenophrenic's abuse of warning templates. MookieG (talk) 22:38, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

You have reverted three times what I consider a valid warning to the other talkpage. If you are having problems with the warning, you need to go WP:ANI and report Xenophrenic. --Morenooso (talk) 22:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

How so, can you provide the diffs from today to explain your rationale? What I've seen [today] is not close to a 3RR violation. I will also note that Xenophrenic didn't post notification of the discussion in the edit warring noticeboard. Were you privy to this? That may have been part of your consideration, it certainly wasn't part of mine. MookieG (talk) 22:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Today you did three reverts of a standard warning template left by another user. Here is the RevisionHistoryDIFF.

Here is the local PST times of your reverts according to that URL:

• 10:50 1st revert (and the system says reverted for all your actions
• 13:21 2nd revert
• 15:36 3rd revert

That is the essence of the 3RR template I left on your talkpage. I could have went with {{subst:uw-3rr3|Article}} or Template:Uw-3rr3. Any more reverts by you before 10:50 tomorrow morning would be 3RR4. I would advise you to go to WP:ANI. You should never remove another editor's warning templates without their permission unless you are admin or very sure ground. Even with the report you cite, you're not on sure ground. --Morenooso (talk) 23:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Those are not separate reverts. They account for one revert of disputed content. If you would be kind enough to look at the diffs, you would see that. MookieG (talk) 23:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Nope, they are three separate actions. All listed in chronological time. A single revert would a one-time revert. You edit-warred and are approaching 3RR. --Morenooso (talk) 23:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, my above post is regarding TruthfulPerson's edits to Coffee Party USA. My reverts of Xenophrenic's warnings are not under dispute, and I didn't think you would've listed bullets of my reverts, when I asked you to read and post the diffs of TruthfulPerson. I fully understood the guidelines 3RR prior to reverting actions I deemed as abuse of template warnings. MookieG (talk) 23:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Again, to clarify, my post above speaking of separate edits was referring to TruthfulPerson's edits of Coffee Party USA. When you posted bullet times instead of universally recognized [in Wikiland] diffs, I assumed they were his/her's. Please learn how to post a proper diff to avoid this type of confusion in the future. Regards. MookieG (talk) 23:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I can post anyway I want and by showing the master revision diff, I satisfied any diff requirement for which there are none here on your talkpage. Now, if this was WP:AVI or WP:AVI I might go the full diff route. You are quibbling about doing three reverts. --Morenooso (talk) 00:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Please, give up while you're just a tad behind. You have no idea what you are arguing. I can say this with confidence knowing that I can't possibly understand your issues. Please read the posts above and try to make odds and ends of it. Thank You. MookieG (talk) 00:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I mentioned my actions to WP:ANI concerning you

Please see this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FEdit_warring&action=historysubmit&diff=358945935&oldid=358941309 DIFF. --Morenooso (talk) 23:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

What? Does not compute. MookieG (talk) 23:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

BTW, you can erase your talkpage but all the history remains. --Morenooso (talk) 00:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you talking about the history of a section title I didn't read? I already had to fix one of your section titles. Is it my fault I didn't read the latest title offered by you? Is it also my fault that I only read your text while assuming good brain function. Please forgive me for expecting you to respond to my request. MookieG (talk) 00:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

This is going to be my last post because you seem to be very upset and not comprehending either your actions or mine. In this DIFF you erased the section I posted here on your talkpage. Please understand I am not "busting your chops" as you put. I observed your actions on another talkpage and reacted as a Page Patroller. I issued you a standardized 3RR advice message. Please try to learn from this otherwise you're going to spin yourself in a corner. --Morenooso (talk) 00:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, this will be the final post. To clarify, you erased the section header. Granted, this is your talkpage and you may do what you wish with it, section headers are put in place to keep distinct trains of thought separate.--Morenooso (talk) 00:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't erase shit. The new section was anything but new. There was no need to create a new section for the same conversation. I just continued it in chronological order. Please read the comments here and at the edit warring noticeboard to understand your mistakes. 00:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit War Warning

As you're probably aware, you're at WP:3RR on Coffee Party USA‎. I've started a discussion on the talk page, please feel free to join in there. Dayewalker (talk) 02:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I will be removing this in 24 hours. I've sparked a conversation on the talk page. What have you done????? MookieG (talk) 02:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)