User talk:KeltieMartinFan: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 17:52, 14 August 2009

The screen name says it all.

Archive Page 01

A little too quick

In case you didn't see a reply else where: if it's appropriate to mention a marriage, it's certainly NOT inappropriate to mention other marital information. Stop being a poor arbiter! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.114.133.44 (talk) 12:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please reconsider your words

Your recent comments on this IPs talk page seem to be fairly inappropriate. Please reconsider your words. --Onorem ♠Dil 13:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please specify which comments I need to reword. It would greatly be appreciated. KeltieMartinFan (talk) 13:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"by obnoxious editors like you"

".they were ALL silenced one way or another"

I disagree with some of the other statements you've made there, but don't see a reason to request that they be reconsidered in this situation. --Onorem ♠Dil 13:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So noted about the "obnoxious" statement. But when an editor is not being civil, am I suppose to pretend that he or she is otherwise? Not everybody who edit on wikipedia are civil, and a lot of times they really are as I incline to describe them. Surely you have to admit that.

And to further my cause about this editor, he just reverted your edit on Rebecca Quick’s article back to the same controversial edit he's been trying to have stick for well over an hour. That is his fourth consecutive revert. Correct me if I’m wrong, isn’t that a violation of a 3-edit rule, and the consequences for that is a 24-hour block? KeltieMartinFan (talk) 13:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA doesn't go away just because you're correct. There's no benefit for you calling them obnoxious. It's only likely to inflame the situation. As far as the revert, he's been reported to the proper noticeboard for it. That's where I noticed the situation. --Onorem ♠Dil 13:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly am I giving him a free pass? What do you expect that I do to stop him other than revert a few times and try to explain why the information should be removed until there is a source for it? I did request page protection in case that noticeboard might have a quicker response. --Onorem ♠Dil 14:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The unsource controversial edit is still appearing on Rebecca Quick's article for the eighth time. That is giving him a free pass. Otherwise, he should be blocked right now. Secondly you come off as an administrator, unless if I'm mistaken. So to answer your second question...YES, you are expected to stop him. Because that's what administrators do to violators of the 3RR rule. But as I can see that's not happening, which makes you just as guilty for not stopping it than the other editor for causing the problem. KeltieMartinFan (talk) 14:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What good do you expect to come from reasserting your comment? Seriously? This isn't about "you." --Onorem ♠Dil 05:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. It isn't about me. It's about you and all the other administrators who put up with this nonsense 24/7/365. Be thankful that I'm defending your honor. KeltieMartinFan (talk) 05:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin. I'm not putting up with nonsense. Your taunting is not helpful. --Onorem ♠Dil 05:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I have no reason to be arguing with you since you & I more or less think alike in overall view of editing here. Nobody's perfect. Surely, I'm not. But at the end of the day, I have no regret for what I've done because I did my part to make sure obnoxious editors (you read right, I did say the "o" word) are not given the free will to put whatever random things they feel like putting on any articles here on Wikipedia. KeltieMartinFan (talk)

Reminder

While your work is very much appreciated here, please try to remember to maintain civility and use appropriate edit summaries. I know it can be frustrating and tedious to remove unsourced material, but it comes with the territory of editing Wikipedia. Thanks! Tan | 39 15:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Meade

Just wanted to say, fair enough. My view towards this is obviously different from yours, but that being said, it's too silly to wage war on, so I concede. Have fun... Kuzosake (talk) 00:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring warning

I'm not inclined, based on your previous behavior, to alert you of this, but I have reported you for edit-warring re: Rebecca Quick. There is a talk page at her entry for discussion, and I recommend you use it. (Several other editors previously involved in this matter have been alerted for their input.)

Good luck in your endeavors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.6.97.3 (talk) 19:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t need luck on here. I’m not the one who doesn’t follow the rules here. KeltieMartinFan (talk) 21:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Luck is all some folks can rely on. : )

162.6.97.3 (talk) 22:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it appears that you, KeltieMartinFan, are not following the rules either. Wikipedia users are permitted to remove messages and warnings at will from their own talk pages. This right was enshrined in the official Vandalism policy 1,312 days ago [1], and reinforced in the User page guideline 912 days ago [2]. Due to continuing confusion regarding if anonymous editors are considered "users," the WP:BLANKING sub-section of WP:USER was changed 494 days ago [3] to explicity state that this right applied to "both registered and anonymous users" equally.

As such, your restoration of comments [4] on User talk:162.6.97.3 looks like a violation of Wikipedia rules. Assuming you do not hold youself above three years of Wikipedia concensus on this issue, perhaps you might want to consider reverting yourself. — Kralizec! (talk) 15:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For your information, the person editing under IP address 162.6.97.3 DOES NOT have ownership of that address. That IP address belongs to a government agency, the American Red Cross, and NOT of a residential or non-corporate area. More than likely, a person employed at the ARC has been using corporate computers to do his wikipedia edits, and NOT in the privacy of his own home. Other people can use this IP address and may not be aware of what's been going on, and those comments are necessary to warn them. So therefore, the rule stating that "Wikipedia users are permitted to remove messages and warnings at will from their own talk pages" DOES NOT apply to this situation for the simple fact that it is NOT "their own talk page". KeltieMartinFan (talk) 15:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who owns an IP is irrelevant. Wikipedia policy allows editors to remove messages from the talk page associated with their account. Regardless of if you agree with this long standing rule, your revert is in violation of it. — Kralizec! (talk) 15:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Meredith Vieira.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Meredith Vieira.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Gage (talk) 13:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What was all that Squawk about anyways?

Seen the Quick article lately? And you're ahead by how many blocks? : D

(Seriously)

You once tried to give an IP editor some advice. Here’s something more sound that may assist you in the future.

Don’t edit just holding your opinions. Edit armed with the facts.

Granted that you grasp Wikipedia procedures. But that is not the sole indicator of editing success. (You appear to be an NBA fan. Tell me this: how many championship rings did Dikembe Mutumbo get producing all of his blocks?)

You NEVER had a real chance with your viewpoint because you NEVER had the facts on your side. Really, how did you think you were going to win?

Wielding Wikipedia policies is no substitute for the truth. You never, ever, reached out to get the data that would support you. You burrowed yourself into Wikipedia-speak. Is that what you’re trying to accomplish as an editor?

So, here now at this virtual Appomattox, let me Grant you a bit of Leeway: Pursue an honorable end. Recognize your errors. Learn from them and acknowledge what is real.

68.50.128.120 (talk) 17:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]