User talk:198.20.40.50

Yeah, I'm too lazy to register.

Ignatieff

Thanks. And kudos to you too. You're the one doing all the edits on the article; I've just left my opinion on the talk page. It is tough to keep things neutral on the political pages and getting tougher every day. You just have to have a thick skin. I was called a partisan on the Ignatieff page and on another page today. Last month I was actually called a Tommy Douglas fanatic until I pointed out that would have made JGGardiner a bad username. --JGGardiner 20:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

It's sort of like dealing with a bunch of snakes on a plane. =) --JGGardiner 20:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll add my thanks too, both for the kudos and for your own consistently balanced edits to the Ignatieff article. I think the problem with editing political pages is that those who have strong convictions about a political figure or issue cannot imagine someone being neutral, or being capable of leaving their partisan convictions at the door. They therefore construe every edit and every comment as either 'for us' or 'against us.' If a change doesn't seem to further their agenda, it must be a covert attempt to undermine it. It's very hard to make progress in that environment, but with the patience and dedication of editors like you, we may yet! Joel Bastedo 23:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

A hasty VP warning...

It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed content from Michael Ignatieff. Please be careful not to remove content from Wikipedia without a valid reason, which you should specify in the edit summary or on the article's talk page. Thank you. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Luna Santin 22:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it was a conscious removal. At present, there's a difference of opinion over whether the removed section should be included. Since the section reads as a personal attack, many of us feel that the information should be properly sourced and verified before inclusion. The talk page has more details, if you're so inclined. 198.20.40.50 22:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha -- when doing that, it never hurts to say "per discussion at talk page" or anything equivalent. "Rvv" is rarely a good edit summary, unless somebody can tell with the quickest of glances that you are in fact reverting simple vandalism (say, reverting a total blanking, or taking out a paragraph that's just fifty swear words). Simple mistakes for both of us to make, no skin off anybody's nose, I think. I saw that another editor used a similar summary; I'm not going to stir up trouble, just yet, but generally content disputes don't qualify as vandalism (per WP:VAND, and if they keep doing that, you may wish to let them know). Either way, m'bad, and good luck. :) Luna Santin 22:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I'll try to be more thorough in my edit summaries. :) 198.20.40.50 22:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Michael Ignatieff

Hi 198.20.40.50,

I have decided to keep the family section out of the article. The intreview with Susan Barrowclough may or may not be true. When the anonymous user gets sources then mabie we can put the family section back. My bad. FellowWikipedian 22:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks FW. 198.20.40.50 22:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the support, twenty-forty-fifty. —Joel Bastedo 15:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Damadian

Thanks for the help with the Raymond V. Damadian page, eh? It's been a real pain to keep neutral with all the creationist rants.

MRI is my first love. Canadian political figures are my second. 198.20.40.50 21:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

This person is creating pro-Ignatieff bias in the article

[1] 64.229.64.116 21:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course. Joel Bastedo and I are paid Iggy operatives. I though everyone knew this already? 198.20.40.50 21:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

(For the rest, I removed a comment by Ignatieff where he jokingly referred to himself as a Martian).

Now we're in an edit war! See below for the fun! 198.20.40.50 22:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

BEFORE REPORTING, PLEASE MAKE SURE THE USER IS FAMILIAR WITH THE 3RR RULE. IF IT IS A NEW USER OR ANON IP, PLACE A WARNING (ie:

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. ) ON HIS/HER TALK PAGE AND REPORT THEM ONLY IF THEY CONTINUE TO REVERT.

• Something I created for the above anonymous user. Feel free to borrow or re-use:

File:Drill.jpg		The Retard's Barnstar
		In appreciation of your dedication to thoughtful, constructive progress in the face of obvious mental retardation.