User talk:Edmonton7838

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome[edit]

Hello, Edmonton7838, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits to the page Joe Paterno have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may be removed if they have not yet been. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. As well, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  Drmies (talk) 15:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Joe Paterno[edit]

This section on Joe Paterno is in response to Drmies incorrect comments above: You stated that my comments about Paterno retiring at the end of the season are incorrect. I have a verfiable source, it is called the Associated Press. Also, it is on the USA Today's website where they quote directly from Paterno's son, Scott. Scott gave an interview to the Harrisburg paper this morning. I just did not get an opportunity to mark the citation before you made your incorrect comment. I would appreciate it if you were to do some due diligence on your part before you make a comment like that on my talk page. I will now go back to that page and provide the reliable sources. You need to learn to be patience and do some basic fact checking before you make a claim like you did. Thank you.--Edmonton7838 (talk) 15:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

  • No, I didn't say that at all. Please don't twist my words: the template is very precise and it tells you to NOT add unverified information to BLP articles. What that means is, do NOT add unverified information to BLP articles! That there is a source for it is beside the point: you should be more careful and only add information that is verified, with the proper citation. You reinstated it with an edit summary that is not to the point: we don't have to be patient and wait until you add the source--you should include the source to begin with. You can get all high and mighty and tell me to exercise diligence and check facts (your facts), but I can more rightfully tell you to read our BLP policy (WP:BLP) and other guidelines (such as WP:V) and edit accordingly. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
  • One more thing: please see WP:SIGLINK. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
    • I do not believe that I am the one that is acting high and mighty in this conversation. I don't believe that calling my valid comments "high and mighty" is appropriate behavior on your part. I do not believe that there are exceptions for admins to this rule. Please focus on the issues and not on me. As to the substance of your claim, I did provide a source directly in the original edit. I provided a reliable source called the Associated Press. Since I provided a reliable source I did not insert unverified information into a BLP. Also, you are correct you are not under any strict obligation to check facts but when a source is provided such as the Associated Press then it would be in good faith for you to check with the Associated Press before you claim that I inserted unverified information in a BLP. I was in the process of providing a more detailed reference to the source when you deleted and commented. I apologize if you took offense to the fact that I pointed out that you could have done a fact check on the Associated Press source before you reverted me and how it seemed to me to be an inpatient edit on your part (a quick fact check on your part would have given me the time that I needed to get the full citation in the article). Thanks--Edmonton7838 (talk) 17:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Also, I did not twist your words. I'm not sure what you are referring to there. But once again I apologize if you believe that I did. If I did I can't see it. Best,--Edmonton7838 (talk) 18:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
      • I am telling you that it is your responsibility as a contributing editor to provide the accurate reference--you didn't. You cited the name of the press agency that published the information, not a reference to the information itself. This is a contentious BLP, an article on an important person read by many and with lots of traffic (note also that it is semi-protected, for all the right reasons), and it is important that we get it right the first time. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 18:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
        • I concede your point on the Associated Press reference in light of the contentiousness of the topic. Even though I am correct that it is a reliable source, it was not the best source. In hindsight, I should have referenced the Harrisburg, Pennsylvania newspaper that published the interview with Scott Paterno. However, technically I did not place unverified information in a BLP. In hindsight, I was not diligent enough in my editing and in hindsight you should have worked with me and assisted by marking the edit "citation needed" or something less drastic or checked the provided source yourself. But I do understand your clear impatience now. I hope we can now both see where we both when wrong here. Best,--Edmonton7838 (talk) 18:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Rio Grande Valley Vipers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Marcus Morris (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) 11:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Michele Bachmann presidential campaign, 2012 with this edit. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Wikipelli Talk 16:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I reviewed your page and it is clear that you are an editor with a lot of experience. However, your revert of my edit was inappropriate. What I did in the edit that you reverted was remove an unreliable source (Democraticconvention.com), which does not in any way meet the standards of Wikipedia reliability. In the same edit I replaced the unreliable, biased source with a tried and true reliable source, ABC News. Now, your mistake of reverting me was fixed by another editor, who did exactly the same edit that I did, you can review that edit here: a proper removal of an unreliable source with a reliable source. When I made the edit I fully explained the edit in the edit summary. However, even though you are an experienced editor you simply reverted me and stated that I did not explain my edit on the talk page. That was an inappropriate edit on your part and it may possibly not be in good faith, but I will still assume good faith on your part. I will assume that may be you did not see the comments in the edit summary or when you reviewed the edit you inadvertently did not review both the of the cited sources, i.e., the biased unreliable source or the reliable ABC News source. Please in the future, please fully review the whole edit instead of simply reverting because even though it might not have been your intention you placed a wholly unreliable and biased source back in the article, an unreliable source that not only is inappropriate to support a fact (which violates Wikipedia) but the source also acts as attack site of Republican politicians and specifically attacks Michelle Bachmann, which also violates the premise of BLP. Please be more careful next time.--Edmonton7838 (talk) 19:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Upon review, the warning above was given erroneously (and Edmonton7938 is free to remove it completely if they wish). The explanation for the error is on my talk page. Edmonton's edits were good faith edits and unfortunately came almost at exactly the same time as an anonymous editor sought to remove the bulk of the content. My apologies. Wikipelli Talk 00:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Newt Gingrich, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jon Huntsman (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) 10:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Jeremy Case[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Jeremy Case has been proposed for deletion because, under Wikipedia policy, all newly created biographies of living persons must have at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. —KuyaBriBriTalk 16:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Please note that the only reason I added the deletion tag is because the article has no sources. Once you add a reliable, independent source to this article I will gladly remove the deletion template. That won't make it completely immune to deletion; it just means that it won't be deleted for the reasons outlined above. —KuyaBriBriTalk 16:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Done as promised. Cheers! —KuyaBriBriTalk 16:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposed merge involving Republican Primary articles.[edit]

Information.svg An article that you have been involved in editing, Republican Party presidential candidates, 2012, has been proposed for a merge with Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Jack Bornholm (talk) 16:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Jeremy Case for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jeremy Case 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/Jeremy Case 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. Rikster2 (talk) 19:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey! - ur contribs 2 WP...[edit]

hv bn noticed @ Yahoo News: LINK (in a bar graph showing the monikers of the users with the most edits during the U.S. Pres. Primaries so far to the Wiki blp pertaining to a Republican party candidate).--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 10:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up Hodgdon's secret garden. I don't know if this is something I should be proud of or whether it is a sign of the apocalypse!--Edmonton7838 (talk) 14:47, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


Notice[edit]

There is a discussion regarding a complaint regarding bullying from this editor User:Seb az86556 at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents 99.251.114.120 (talk) 01:50, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Bold, revert, discuss[edit]

When you left this warning template on User talk:Gandydancer, you probably saw that it recommends following the bold, revert, discuss process. That's good advice, but right now you seem to be using bold, revert, keep reverting, and demand that the other person discuss ([1], [2]), which is generally less productive. There's no deadline here, and no rush to force a borderline tidbit into the article (particularly as WP:BLP sets a relatively conservative bar for what we include in biographies). You don't lose anything by starting a talkpage discussion; in fact, it's usually viewed as a positive step, while continuing to re-insert controversial material into a biography while demanding that the other person start a talkpage thread can give the impression of combativeness. Just a suggestion, since you warned User:Gandydancer to follow WP:BRD, that you consider the same approach. MastCell Talk 22:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit summaries, commentary and neutrality[edit]

Hi again. Just wanted to remind you to please be mindful of the tone of your edit summaries on Elizabeth Warren. Hostile, accusatory, sarcastic edit summaries don't accomplish anything constructive, and just serve to pour gasoline on already heated disagreements. Thanks, Arbor8 (talk) 22:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Please provide an example of where I was: (1) hostile, (2) accusatory, and (3) sarcastic. I need to know where these edit summaries exist--since you are making the accusation then you need to provide very specific examples.--Edmonton7838 (talk) 22:32, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
You know what I'm talking about; your recent edit summaries have been transparently inflammatory. I am trying especially hard to assume good faith, which is a difficult thing to do given your history. You know what I'm talking about there, too. Arbor8 (talk) 00:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Feel free to leave a WP:Talkback notice on my talk if you'd like, but please don't copy this convo over there. Arbor8 (talk) 00:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
No. I do not know what you are talking about. Please do not make accusations that you can't support. Also, don't make obscure comments such as "You know what I'm talking about" because I don't know what you are talking about.--Edmonton7838 (talk) 00:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
As a bystander who doesn't edit that article (or political articles in general), language like "Mo puff No Mo" sounds pretty snide. Dialing it back a notch would help reduce the tension. On a related point, it looks like you may have violated the three-revert rule, or have come close to it. Wikipedia has lots of confusing policies, so you may have been unaware. I'm not going to make a case of it, and I don't like those templated warnings, so thought I'd just mention it instead of slapping one of those officious notices. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

You need to learn about WP:3RR. You're done on Elizabeth Warren for a spell. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

And again at the limit of 3RR on Warren. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:23, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Blocked[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit-warring on Elizabeth Warren. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. MastCell Talk 18:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Edmonton7838 (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

You listed listed four reverts; however, the fourth edit was not a revert at all, but was merely an edit where I moved and expanded upon a citation to the article. This edit cannot be construed in anyway as a revert. It is a simple edit designed to make the article better. Also, you are also an editor of the article and you have clearly disagreed with my edits and you have commented negatively on my edits which were not inappropriate edits--you just merely disliked them. I respectfully ask you to end the block because you are allowing your clear conflict of interest between what you want to see the article say and enforcing the 3rr rules. I believe that you have allowed your conflict to get the better of you because you want me to stop adding notable, fully reliably sourced material to the article.--Edmonton7838 (talk) 19:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You are blocked for edit warring, not for breach of 3RR. 3RR is not an entitlement, but just a bright line instant block offence - and you can be blocked for edit warring even if you don't go near 3 reverts. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

You state Mastcell edited the article. This is a testible hypothesis. Provide a link to an edit of his that was made in an editorial, not adminstrative (adding protection) capacity and I will be the first to seek censure. Fail to do so, and I will suggest you apologize. Hipocrite (talk) 19:44, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I do have to engage with you in this conversation and I will not engage with you in this conversation. Please go work on an article and go away from my talk page.--Edmonton7838 (talk) 21:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Misrepresnetation of sources[edit]

Misrepresentation of sources is a serious matter. In this edit, you write "only one eighth of one percent of bankruptcies are directly attributable to medical expenses." The article says "eight-tenths of one percent of Americans lived in families that filed for bankruptcy as a result of medical costs." Why did you misrepresent the source? Hipocrite (talk) 23:10, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I have further concerns, on the exact same line. In this edit, you say "'may have' is the commentary of an editor, not in source," when removing the may have from "[Warren] may have initially said that she was not aware that she had been listed as a minority at Harvard University."
Here is a quote from the source provided "Warren, a Harvard law professor, hit back at criticism that she may have initially said she was unaware that Harvard had listed her as a minority." I found this by going to the source and searching for "may have."
This behavior is highly problematic. If any edit of yours blatantly misrepresents a source again, in any article, I will be forced to seek administrative action. Hipocrite (talk) 20:45, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Hogwash. I made a mistake. Get over yourself. I will not stop editing because you are making threats.--Edmonton7838 (talk) 23:13, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit summaries, again[edit]

Please be mindful of your tone, and try to focus edit summaries on the edit and article at hand, rather than your personal commentary about Wikipedia. This and this are examples. Thanks. Arbor8 (talk) 16:31, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

No. You are wrong. My first edit summary that you did not like was simply this: removed another fist-pumping, chest-pounding, fire-eating quote from Warren that would never be allowed if she was on other side of aisle. I will not be "mindful of" my "tone" as you suggest because there is nothing wrong with my tone. The quote was unnecessary, it was way too long, it would not have survived in Scott Brown's article, for example, and it did not add new information to the article, therefore, it did not bring new information to the reader. The overly long quote is the type of quote that you would find in Warren's campaign materials. It is not encyclopedic and it is not notable. It is also unnecessary. I was making a valid point about the article. You may not agree with my point, but I had every right to make it. Please focus your time and effort on the article, which is exactly what my edit summary did and zero amount of time on me.--Edmonton7838 (talk) 17:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
I would love more than anything to focus zero amount of my time on you, but given your extensive history of tendentious editing, edit warring, POV edits, and other violations of Wikipedia policy, that's all but impossible. I think you'll find that if you approach editing with a more civil tone and a genuine commitment to collaboration, you'll probably never hear from me again. Otherwise, I suspect we'll continue to butt heads. Arbor8 (talk) 18:56, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Is that a threat?--Edmonton7838 (talk) 23:02, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
If you interpret a request to be civil and collaborative as a threat, then I don't know what to tell you. Arbor8 (talk) 14:33, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
I will say once again, my edit summary was on point and it talked about the article. The edit summary pointed out correctly that the long, long, long quote was merely a fist pumping, chest-pounding rah rah moment for Elizabeth Warren and it was entirely unencyclopedic and it is entirely appropriate for me to point out, correctly, that the quote was inappropriate and too long. The quote did not add anything to the article. My comment was correct and appropriate. Now, you don't like my comment, but that does not mean that it is uncivil. You have NEVER in this discussion pointed out how I was being uncivil. Who was I being uncivil to? You? No, I was not personally attacking you. The quote was a ""fist-pumping, chest-pounding, fire-eating quote from Warren that would never be allowed if she was on other side of aisle"". I am not going to apologize for pointing out the inappropriateness of the quote. It did not belong in the article. Just because you might have wanted to keep the quote in the article does not mean that I have to apologize to you for saying something uncivil because I did not say anything uncivil to you. I was stating my opinion on the quote in the article. I will continue to make the type of comment that made there as long as I want to. My comment does not violate any Wikipedia rule or civility. You just didn't like what I said. That is NOT a violation of civility. Actually, your false claim that I violated civility borders on being uncivil. Also, your comment was a threat. Please don't make threats.--Edmonton7838 (talk) 14:42, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Other accounts[edit]

You wrote "You have, so far, not found a technicality to use to block me. That is usually the defensive response that I get from my feedback." Could you please disclose your other accounts? Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 02:03, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Hogwash, again. You like to play gotcha games, don't you? I was referring to my IP. Go edit another article. Oh, by the way, I will continue to edit Elizabeth Warren. Thank you very much.--Edmonton7838 (talk) 14:41, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
What IP address was that? Hipocrite (talk) 15:35, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Actually, having done some more dilliegence - were you, or were you not any of the users referred to at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Corbridge/Archive? Hipocrite (talk) 16:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Nope.--Edmonton7838 (talk) 17:03, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
If you're not related to those accounts, you really should go defend yourself over at the SPI. Arbor8 (talk) 14:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case[edit]

Puppeter template.svg

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Corbridge for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Arbor8 (talk) 19:36, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I didn't delve all the way back, so there might be some nastiness in the Corbridge SP case. However, I see that the report only mentions this account and not multiple accounts. Barring me missing something historically bad, if this account is related, I'd recommend talking to arbcom. Being restricted to one account etc etc. Arkon (talk) 02:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Check the archive on the SPI. There are 14 accounts going back to 2004, with a long history of edit warring, blocks, block evasion, incivility and personal attacks. Arbor8 (talk) 02:54, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Sadly, sounds like half of Wikipedia. I still say clearing a return through Arbcom is the way to go if attempted. Arkon (talk) 04:12, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Not a bad idea. We'll see what happens. Arbor8 (talk) 13:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


GA review[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elizabeth_Warren/GA2#GA_Reassessment - Youreallycan 21:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)