User talk:Patstuart: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:26, 21 October 2006

This user makes mistakes on RC patrol. (Report one)

Before becoming angry at me for reverting your legitimate edit, please realize that Recent-Page Patrollers occasionally make mistakes, as Wikipedia is often vandalized, and sometimes we miswarn a user. If you believe I have reverted your edit in error, please calmly leave me a message below, and I will look into your edit. Thank you for your patience.

This is a Wikipedia user talk page, not an encyclopedic article. Click here to leave me a message

If you leave me a message, I will generally reply here unless you ask otherwise.
If I leave you a message, you may reply there unless it was not recent.
Please sign your messages with ~~~~.

See comments on WP:RFI

Pat, I've reviewed the edits and commented in detail on the RFI page. One area that I can't comment on is regarding potential subtle vandalism to assorted band pages, and I'm unfamiliar with the genre. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 17:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've said (and re-said) everything I can on the RFI. Take another look at it when you get a chance. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 19:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He seems a bit less active at the moment. I noticed this questionable edit yesterday, where he changed goth to mainstream, but it was later deleted by another editor. I'm still not sure what's supposed to happen on WP:RFI; it's not clear what it takes to convince an admin to become involved, and I'm not even sure what the remedy is. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 15:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you hounding me, Jim Douglas? You call the edit to which you linked 'questionable'...I corrected some shocking grammar, and changed the statement so it more accurately fits the facts. What do you know about 'emo'? I must confess I don't know much about it, but what I do know is enough to realise that claiming it is influenced by gothic fashion is blatantly false, and was obviously added by a misinformed imbecile who can't write a coherent sentence. The influence on 'emo' must be mainstream fashion, because it is like a watered-down poserish form of commercialised punk. That's a fact - even those who listen to it must be aware of the poser element because they call it 'scenecore', showing that being a 'scenester' and seen as a fashionable member of the group is more important than the aesthetic merit of the music. I am not sure that I have heard 'emo' music, but I am sure it is aesthetically bankrupt, as most of that garbage is. The other editor probably deleted the sentence altogether because pointing out that 'emo' is mainstream is redundant. Note that they didn't revert my edit back to 'gothic' and bad grammar, because it was the edit of the anonymous person, not me, which was questionable. So please explain exactly what is questionable about my change. Show that I am wrong when I think you are harassing me, and trying to pick a fight by saying objectionable things about my actions. Either that, or apologise for insulting me. The Crying Orc 14:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Hounding"? Oh, please. I made that comment to Patstuart; you had to come looking for it. Yes, I said it was questionable; you'll also note that I didn't revert it. The entire sentence, including your change, was removed 20 minutes later with an edit summary of "deleted unneccessary and questionable content". You've demonstrated a pattern of injecting nonsense into articles, so at the moment, your edits are questionable by default. You have repeatedly displayed bad faith in your short time on Wikipedia. I direct your attention to the bold text in WP:AGF: This policy does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 15:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that edit does seem legit. Though I personally believe that emo is influenced by goth, though neither side would readily admit it (a.k.a. crossover bands like Good Charlotte, whose fashion sense is clearly gothic, but whose music is not); emo is considerably more mainstream too than goth. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 15:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RC Patroller Mistakes Notice

I borrowed your noticebox and installed it on my talk page. If you object to this, I'll be happy to redact it. Thank you. E. Sn0 =31337= 16:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem; I actually just put it up this morning. And I like the "thank you for your patience" bit at the end; I think I'll steal that in turn. :-D -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: User:65.185.65.183

Good point, heh. You'd think I'd be especially cognizant of that, having originally blocked him, but I guess I'm having one of those days. Will play less gently with this prey. Luna Santin 21:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Teh blocked. Luna Santin 21:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There you go. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CC of reply

Sure, no problem - and thanks for your work against vandalism. I think the reason is fairly clear. I would imagine it's someone I've written about on SourceWatch, or who represents an organisation I've written about. Since they can't identify any factual errors in those article(s), they've been unable to get the content they object to removed from SourceWatch. Hence they've resorted to these extremely childish tactics. Based on the timing of when this started, and when it has sporadically resumed, I can make some guesses about which individual/organisation, but those really are only guesses so I don't intend to say whom! Cheers, --Neoconned 11:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prejudice from Pat Stuart

I actually knew Dr. Alberto Rivera and interviewed him in 1982. He's on the level. The WikiP page on him is not neutral and obviously biased in favor of the pro-Catholic party line. If Pat Stuart is a fact checker and neutrality keeper he's a hypocrite. I resent my changes being tossed out because of a prejudiced Pat Stuart who claims to be a Christian, further compounding his hypocrisy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.214.146.99 (talk • contribs)

As per this comment: these contradictions led to the world-wide Protestant Reformation that re-discovered the essence of the Christian early church is salvation through faith in a pardon by Jesus Christ---not by good behavior in any church. I, for one, am a Protestant, and an unusually dedicated one, so I believe every word of this. But it's clearly a pro-Protestant, anti-Catholic message, and it has no place in the encyclopedia. If you think the rest of the article is biased, I encourage you to work on that. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 15:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, please see WP:NPA. I reverted your edits in good faith. If you have a good reason, and non-POV way of stating them, feel free. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 15:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hiii

Thanks for the comments about my contribution regarding Prof. Mohammad Mujeeb. I very well understood, before adding it, that it may not be and should not be acceptable. My idea was to start the thread, and to gather information. If you observe there is nothing much about him, in the article except his role at JMI.

I hope to get more information about him.

Thanks once again. Taher