This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
This must STOP
This is just another in a very long line of agenda-driven edits that must stop, Grundle. How many times do you have to be told that these newsbites you keep shoving into articles are completely inappropriate? Yet again, you have inserted something into Political positions of Barack Obama that is not a political position. This is highly disruptive behavior for which you have received multiple warnings. Stop it now. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
And this is even worse. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
In the first case, Obama's actions contradicted his words. The article already cited his words - I just wanted to add his actions for balance.
In the second case, the article already had a section on conservative support of Obama. I added the section on communist support of Obama for balance.
That's not balance. That's agenda-based editing, commonly referred to as "POV pushing". It shows a complete lack of understanding of WP:NPOV. You need to stop this tactic of putting trivial, poorly-sourced crap into Obama-related articles immediately. I'm going to request that you should be a named party in the ArbCom investigation. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Why do you think the San Francisco Chronicle is a poor source? Why do you think the Communist Party website is a poor source for the views of the Communist Party? Grundle2600 (talk) 20:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
You are missing the point. It's not about the sources (although you synthesized meaning here by combining two sources), but about the appropriateness of the edits. As usual, you made no attempt to discuss what you surely knew would be highly contentious additions before putting them in. As usual, you added something that was not a political position into an article listing political positions. Every edit you make seems to be a bad faith attempt to smear Barack Obama, and that kind of agenda-based editing is totally unacceptable for Wikipedia. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
It's not synthesis, because one source cited the other source. And I didn't "smear" Obama - all I did was cite the facts. Obama said he would stop the DEA raids on medical marijuana, but he did not keep his promise. Don't blame me for that - blame Obama. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
You need to self-revert this crap immediately. It is not a political position. It is a claim by some random magazine. Stop your bad faith edits. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Reason magazine is not a "random" magazine. It has been the #1 circulation libertarian magazine for decades. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Tiny circulation, biased, your source comes from its blog. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
The Reason magazine article says the Chicago Tribune called it one of the 50 best magazines. Blogs from reputable publications are allowable as sources. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Did you totally miss my comment above that starts with "you are missing the point"? -- Scjessey (talk) 21:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I read everything that you said. You said my entries were "poorly-sourced." But then after I defended the sources, you said it's not about the sources. You also falsely accused me of doing "original research," "inserting unpublished information," and putting my "personal analysis" into articles. You keep making one false accusation after another. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
May 2009
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did to Presidency of Barack Obama, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Scjessey (talk) 20:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I cited my sources for everything. Everything was published. There was no original research. There were no personal attacks. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Party
I went and added you to the party as an Obama case. Doesn't mean you will or won't be sanctioned, though if you have any evidence you wish to add, or wish to propose or comment on ideas in the workshop, you are certainly welcome to. Wizardman 21:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I added my defense to the section. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, articles should not be moved without good reason. They need to have a name that is both accurate and intuitive. We have some guidelines in place to help with this. Generally, a page should only be moved to a new title if the current name doesn't follow these guidelines. Also, if a page move is being discussed, consensus needs to be reached before anybody moves the page. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. The article is about Johnston and not about the impregnation of Sarah Palin's daughter. He might be notable for that, but the article is not about that event. Please move back at once.TharsHammarBits andPieces 17:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
..."the article is not about that event". Have you read it lately? If the article is not about that 1 event, why is the entire ongoing Afd discussion revolving around the applicability of the BLP1E policy, which by the way specifically advises renaming 1 event articles for the event they cover. And don't template the regulars, it's just rude. (this guy registered in April 07 for crying out loud). On first impression, this guy is being harassed, templated and now blocked, for simply being being bold. MickMacNee (talk) 19:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I would, however, urge you to consider whether boldly moving a high-profile BLP during a contentious AFD discussion without a proper WP:RM discussion was a good idea. Proposing the move on the talk page first may have avoided all this. Keep this in mind for the future. –xenotalk 22:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Talk:Michelle Obama. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this page. You may wish to ask factual questions about Talk:Michelle Obama at the Reference desk.
I cited my source. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Your source did not say anything about "nationalization" or George Bush, so you basically made some of it up - original research. Also, this addition is pure synthesis of multiple sources that violates the neutral point of view with more "however"-style constructs. I suggest you self revert and cease this agenda-based editing immediately. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
The source says "a majority stake in GMAC" and "In December." Since I'm not supposed to quote articles, I summarized that info in my own words. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Topic ban right around the corner
I've been here to warn you before, and this is really and truly the final warning. Your recent editing over at Presidency of Barack Obama is unacceptable and part of a larger pattern whereby you engage in original research and/or use poor sources (or use acceptable sources inappropriately) in order to push non-NPOV, and at times non-notable, material into various Barack Obama related articles. The following three diffs all show problematic recent edits in this regard. [1][2][3]
The next time I see edits along these lines, I intend to ban your from Barack Obama articles for a fairly lengthy period of time per Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation. After taking note of your editing pattern on these articles for some time, I've come to the conclusion that your contributions there are almost exclusively non-constructive. This is a final chance to change course, but if I see or am informed of these kind of edits again you will be banned from these articles. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I did suggest that first one on the talk page. People said the source I cited was not reliable, so I found a better source, and added it to the article. My other edits are all well sourced. I think you're just afraid of people finding out the truth about Obama, so you want to ban me. There are about a dozen or so Obama supporters here who keep erasing my stuff and want to ban me. Wikipedia is supposed to be about free speech. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Bigtimepeace You threatened to ban me for adding true, well sourced info about CAFE. But you didn't criticize Scjessey for removing my true, well sourced info, and replacing it with false, unsourced info. Bigtimepeace, this is proof that you are being biased and unfair. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
BTW, Grundle, I'm counting -- you, Scjessey, and I are each at two reverts. Let's not get blocked, ok?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Since you're counting all three of us, you are being very fair. Thank you for the warning - I appreciate it very, very much. And even more importantly, thank you for being fair in counting all of us. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Just some minor advice
Don't cut into editor's comments by placing a reply in the middle of it. Just place your response below and if necessary quote what you're referring to.[4].--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh. I didn't mean to post in the middle of someone's commment. I thought I was posting in between comments. I'm sorry. Thanks for telling me. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
California
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to California. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Waterjuice (talk) 22:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits, such as those you made to California. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. Waterjuice (talk) 00:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Unconstructive? Yes. Disruptive? Maybe. Vandalism? No. Two warnings for one edit? You should retract one of the two ;) .--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for saying that it's not vandalism. I think my edit was very constructive. There's lot of talk in the media about raising taxes to reduce California's deficit. My edit shows that if spending had increased only by inflation and population growth, California would have a surplus instead of a deficit. So the problem is not a lack of sufficient tax revenue. That's very relevant and constructive. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Painting follow-up
Here's the "follow-up" to the Truth (painting)http://www.dantuonoarts.com/ The artist issued a press release too, but the only coverage seems to be an editorial from a Baptist paper. ChildofMidnight (talk) 12:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I followed proper wikpedia procedure by getting consensus on the talk page before I made my edit. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
No you didn't. You did not wait for a response. You just went ahead and shoved your POV version in anyway, and I reverted it as soon as I caught it. Also, don't leave messages on my talk page about Ralph Nader, claiming I somehow dissed him and that was against Wikipedia policy. I've reverted your "warnings" since they are complete nonsense. Please stop spreading your POV, right-wing agenda all over Wikipedia. It's really getting tiresome. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I waited two days, and no one responded. My warnings to you were legitimate. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
No they weren't. I did not break any policies, so your warnings were completely inappropriate. Furthermore, you did not establish a consensus for inserting your POV. You need to give people more time to respond, especially over a holiday weekend. Please stop your agenda-driven editing. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
←You need to self-revert your last edit to this article and engage in the talk page discussion. How many times do you need to seek consensus before making (and repeatedly reverting) controversial edits? -- Scjessey (talk) 21:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Two days is not the same as five days. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Please self-revert, and do not revert to include disputed additions in the future. If not, I or someone else will likely ask for assistance regarding edit warring and, given your prior history, this may result in administrative action. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 21:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Since I don't want to get banned, I went to the article to self revert, but I see that someone else beat me to it. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Okay, too late - I see that another editor has removed this. I'm not going to report it, and thanks for the acknowledgment. I can't speak for what anyone else does though. Please do be careful. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Scjessey and I each made two reverts. Why did you leave a message on my talk page but not his? Grundle2600 (talk) 21:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for noticing - I think I will. However, adding disputed content is a different thing than removing it. Also, although I think some people are concerned about Scjessey, nobody in a position to ban him has threatened to do so, and also the issues there seem to have more to do with language and tone of comments directed other editors than revert warring. Wikidemon (talk) 22:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
How controversial is this material? Do you think The Washington Times is a valid source for this kind of information or not? Do you think that two days is the same thing as five days, or not? Grundle2600 (talk) 22:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
You know, I haven't actually looked at that. I was just noticing the edit warring, which should be avoided whether the information is good or not. The Washington Times is a reliable source for the most part. They do have a heavy amount of editorializing and don't always clearly separate their opinions from the news, but they're perfectly fine for factual matters. I would have a question as to whether the information is really that important, but I would have to read up on it because this is the first I've heard of it. Wikidemon (talk) 22:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
As I explain on the article's talk page, I changed my mind about this! Grundle2600 (talk) 04:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I just wanted to say "thank you" for listening to what people had to say and seeing where the problem was. You are a diligent, hard-working editor who can be a highly productive contributor to the Wikipedia project. I hope you can see now how important (and useful) it is to have talk page discussion for edits like this that might be controversial. I'm confident that you want the same thing as I do - an accurate, fair Wikipedia that respects the views of everyone. Hopefully this can be the beginning of a more productive period for us both! -- Scjessey (talk) 04:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Although this is not a good start. For one thing, it speculates on a possible future for GM, so it is inappropriate for this article per WP:CRYSTAL. Please self-revert and consider discussing on the talk page instead. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome. And thank you for the compliments. I have reverted that edit as you suggested. Grundle2600 (talk) 04:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Sonia Sotomayor
“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
Dude man you have got to get that into her article. John Asfukzenski (talk) 02:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I did put it in. Someone else took it out. It's a relevant quote, cited by The New York Times. I agree with you that it should be in the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 04:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Hey good job getting them in the nomination section. It makes me sick when the politically motivated try removing it for absurd excuses just to not include unpleasant but true quotes from her. John Asfukzenski (talk) 03:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I had originally put it in her main article, but someone moved it to the nomination article, so that's where I later added other ones. Grundle2600 (talk) 13:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
George Will's opinion column is not a reliable source for the claims you are making in this article. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
The following is a discussion that began on the LGBT adoption article's talk page.
Are you suggesting that stealing eggs - what these animals had been doing unsuccessful before humans intervened - is a natural behavior? Sounds criminal to me.Tobit2 (talk) 18:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
No, they didn't steal the egg. Humans did that part. It's the raising of and feeding the chick by two adult males that seems to be natural. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually, before humans gave the egg to them, the two were attempting to steal eggs. Also, I don't think there is any way we can say this is 'natural' behavior since it is a unique case. A chimp may enjoy talking sign language, but does that mean sign language is natural language for chimps? Perhaps we have here a classic case of the exception that proves the rule.Tobit2 (talk) 02:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
OK. I'm not putting it back in the article anyway. Grundle2600 (talk) 02:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on B&W mPower requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Al Gore III
Grundle, what on earth are you doing? The wikitruth page you lifted this from is just a copy of the old article, before it was deleted at its EIGHTH nomination (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Gore III (8th nomination)). There is no way in hell this BLP coatrack mess is reappearing. Also, please note the "do not remove this tag" part of the notice. If you really think you have a leg to stand on, use the "hangon" tag and try to make your case. Tarc (talk) 03:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
The ONLY reason the article was ever deleted was because of the drug stuff. Before that was added, no one ever wanted to delete it. Besides, his sisters have their own articles. Grundle2600 (talk) 03:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
First dog
Regarding this edit[5] I don't see what's so wrong with your question. It is kind of funny. But the real reason is probably WP:BLP, and out of respect for them as underage children. I'm pretty sure there would be at least as much interest in the girls as the dog here otherwise. Note - there is no "biography of living dogs" policy. You can't libel a dog, and its feelings and career probably won't be hurt if you did... those are the two main justifications for BLP. Cheers, Wikidemon (talk) 05:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! I search google news regularly on the topic, and I thought the picture would make a great addition to the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I had seen it on Autoblog before. I am not sure your copyright rationale is valid in this case. But as long as noone complains... I am sure Telsa won't mind :) Splette :)How's my driving? 02:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
It was Tesla Motors that sponsored the promotional event, so the copyright tag is legitimate. Grundle2600 (talk) 02:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
You may be right. I usually try to avoid copyrighted images because sometimes they seem to get deleted here for all sorts of reasons. But then again, its hard to find any Tesla images that are not copyright. Splette :)How's my driving? 02:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I did not violate the NPOV policy. I just reported the facts as they were reported by ABC News. Grundle2600 (talk) 02:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
You did not report the full facts or context for what happened, you cherry picked one aspect (for example, you ignored the fact that Obama has stated he wants DOMA appealed, which is obviously relevant) and thus there is arguably an NPOV problem. Just as importantly, you did not discuss the change on the talk page, which you need to do. Again, as I've suggested to you over, and over, and over again, don't add tiny tidbits of (essentially always negative) news like this. Start a discussion on the talk page about including a section on social policy and/or gay rights, and then suggest that this fact be part of it the discussion.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
I left my response there too. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Michelle Obama's influence on style and fashion
I just deleted this article under CSD G4 as it was almost exactly the same as Michelle Obama's arms, which was deleted as the result of a deletion discussion. Please do not recreate this article. Nick-D (talk) 09:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Why didn't you read the talk page of the new article first? I said that during the deletion discussion of the old article, it was suggested that the info be put into a larger article about the subject, so that's what I did. Grundle2600 (talk) 09:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
“Michelle Obama’s arms” Jack Merridew 15:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Dude, chill. You're killing all the arguments to keep the article simply by opening your mouth so much. lol
Let others take the lead now. At the very least, that way it won't appear as though you're attempting to "own" the article at all. Ω (talk) 15:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
This is no different than the earlier discussion for deletion. No one is citing any wikipedia policies to justify the deletion. Instead, they are saying the article is "drivel" and that I have a "fetish." Those are not official reasons for deletion. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Right, and myself and others have been pointing that out. You're dragging the discussion down into an area where it's an interpersonal fight though, with is only going to turn the tide against the article. The process shouldn't be personal, and you have a legitimate grievance against those who are turning it into a personal issue against you (as above). Don't try to own the article or the subject though, as that is against policy in and of itself (see WP:OWN). As I said above, just relax and wait now. Ω (talk) 15:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Tarc (talk) 15:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Why do you claim that Associated Press is an "unreliable source"? Grundle2600 (talk) 01:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Grundle, if you think these sorts of questions can bait me into snapping into a mindless, uncivil retort, you are sorely mistaken. I'm as cool as the other side of the pillow. What I said was that unreliable sources report the firing as a "controversy", while the AP citation reports the firing as a simple event, with no loaded descriptions. But you already knew that. Tarc (talk) 03:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Here is the Associated Press article that I cited. It's called, "Obama ousts AmeriCorps' IG who investigated friend." It says, "Obama's move follows an investigation by IG Gerald Walpin finding misuse of federal grants by a nonprofit education group led by Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson, who is an Obama supporter and former NBA basketball star.... Grassley had written Obama a letter pointing to a law requiring that Congress be given the reasons an IG is fired. He cited a Senate report saying the requirement is designed to ensure that inspectors general are not removed for political reasons. Grassley said Walpin had identified millions of dollars in AmeriCorps funds that were wasted or misspent and 'it appears he has been doing a good job.'... The IG found that Johnson, a former all-star point guard for the Phoenix Suns, had used AmeriCorps grants to pay volunteers to engage in school-board political activities, run personal errands for Johnson and even wash his car... The U.S. attorney's office reached a settlement in the matter. Brown cited press accounts that said Johnson and the nonprofit would repay half of nearly $850,000 in grants it received." How is that not controversial? Grundle2600 (talk) 03:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Baseball Bugs (talk·contribs) is reminded to be more civil when dealing with users and to not use talk pages as a forum.
The probation on articles relating to Barack Obama will be reviewed by a group of involved and non-involved editors and administrators to see how effective it has been. The process will last two weeks. After the two weeks elapse, the working group will provide their findings to us and the community, and will outline how the article probation will run in the future.
- For the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 15:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I notice you've been making comments about the decision. Can I invite you, instead of contributing to the case page itself, to go to the noticeboard page? The case page is only for arbitrators and isn't a place for discussion. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Hugo Chavez
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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 a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.
I was reverting vandalism, and I even started a section on the talk page to talk about this. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
There was no vandalism. You need to slow down and read what other editors say in reply to you. I'm inviting you to self-revert at this point. Dynablaster (talk) 16:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
When someone erases something that is sourced, and adds something that is not sourced, that's vandalism. They didn't even bother to read the source. I have every right to change the article so it matches the sources. I started a section on the talk page to talk about this. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
If one editor believes material is imperfectly sourced but another editor disagrees, or has a more pressing point to make, it's not proper to close off your ears and dismiss them as vandals, as you did to both Disembrangler and myself. Always take the necessary time to read what they have to say and engage them on the talk page. The material you added needed to be more clearly attributed to Investor's Business Daily. It wouldn't have taken ten minutes to fix this, had you taken the time to understand what was being said to you. Even now, at this late stage, you fail to acknowledge any of these points. Dynablaster (talk) 17:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I put quotes around the word "fleeing" and added the name of the publication to the text of the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I have also replaced the list of professions with the words "well educated people" because this is a summary. It should be mentioned in that section, but only as a summary of the longer mention in the spinoff article. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
The duration of the block is 48 hours. Here are the reverts in question.
You're on 1RR. I reject your assertion of reverting vandalism - the WP:3RR vandalism exemption is tightly drawn and only obvious vandalism qualifies, which this wasn't William M. Connolley (talk) 18:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I was reverting vandalism. Someone kept erasing sourced info and replacing it with unsourced info. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, you keep saying that. You should give us some credit for reading what you've already written. In turn, I rather hoped you had read what I've already written. If you haven't, I invite you to do so now and address what I've said William M. Connolley (talk) 18:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Grundle, you have to abide by Wikipedia's definition of vandalism. Edits that damage articles aren't necessarily considered vandalism, and have to be dealt with through the appropriate dispute resolution protocols. Only blatant absurdities and obviously inappropriate changes like inserting swear words, commentary, or jokes are uniformly considered vandalism, and even those should be reported to an appropriate board if they're repeatedly inserted.
I thought you knew by now that violating the Wikipedia's integrity, by inserting bias, and removing sourced content is allowed. :) I should say I haven't looked at your edits so I have no opinion on their merits... ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I was being bold! I added certain sourced info to the article, but other people kept taking it out. Also, someone kept adding something that was not sourced, which I kept removing. There is a discussion of it on the article's talk page. I know that what I did was right. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Grundle, right or wrong you can't edit like that. You need to accept the rules or there's going to be a burning at the stake... Anyway, take care and have fun. I won't comment further. (ec) ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
ChildofMidnight - thank you for your kind words to me on your talk page. I would respond there instead of here if I could. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Most welcome. I respect your integrity and good nature. Don't let any minor setbacks get you down. (ec) ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm a libertarian, not a conservative. But it's worth noting that one conservative was so upset with the (perceived) censorship at wikipedia that he started his own wiki called Conservapedia. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. Wikipedia Review seems to have been created out of frustrations with some of the problems here as well. Abusive actions have created many frustrated editors and some passionate enemies of this website, which is unfortunate. Imperfect though things are, Wikipedia is still a pretty amazing resource. And trying to maintain its integrity and neutral point of view, according to our core policy as well as the basic and obvious need for fairness and balance, is certainly a worthwhile endeavor. Censorship and bias promote ignorance. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I've written dozens of articles on science, technology, and pop culture, without there ever being any major edit wars. So yes, I like the this website a lot too. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for telling me about Wikipedia Review. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
If you want a really radical take on Wikipedia you can check out Encyclopedia Dramatica. Many consider it an "attack site". ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Their page on Wikipedia is at their web address /Wikipedia. I apologize in advance if there's anything there you find offensive. Maybe you already know about it. I found it entertaining to read the alt-Wikimedia when I was blocked for 24 hours. :) Alternatively you can apologize, accept responsibility for whatever you've been blocked for, and promise not to do it again. In which case leniency MIGHT be invoked. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
All I did was add sourced material to articles, and I am not sorry for doing that. There are Obama supporters and Chavez supporters at wikipedia who want to suppress information from those articles. I will not issue a fake apology - I will never apologize for adding things to articles. It's the people who censor articles who should do the apologizing. However,I will try to avoid breaking the 3RR rule, because I hate getting blocked. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:45, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
This 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).
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, 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. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Comments: Disembrangler also violated the 3RR rule - not by my count. If you care to supply diffs, please do. William M. Connolley did not punish - blocks are preventative not punitive. William M. Connolley is being biased - I'm not aware of any bias against you, or pro D. I was being bold - be bold *once*. As that page you've linked to, and carefully read, says ...but please be careful. Finally: just in case you're unaware of this: a talk page ending in praise of WR and ED isn't going to strike the right note in certain quarters William M. Connolley (talk) 08:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Also, please note that Wikipedia is not about Us vs Them. This is not a conflict where one side wins over the other side. NPOV does not mean adding the same amount of negative material to so called positive material. Please take the time to read WP:NPOV, WP:NOT, WP:DR, WP:SS, WP:CRIT, and WP:BETTER. Thank you, Brothejr (talk) 10:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Three is not more than three. Read WP:3RR again. --jpgordon::==( o ) 15:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Here, have a banana! Dynablaster (talk) 15:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Oops! I was wrong. I am sorry. I apologize. And while I love bananas, and I thank you for your kind offer, and I am a vegetarian, I think that in this case, I shall have to eat crow. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. 
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, articles should not be moved without good reason. They need to have a name that is both accurate and intuitive. We have some guidelines in place to help with this. Generally, a page should only be moved to a new title if the current name doesn't follow these guidelines. Also, if a page move is being discussed, consensus needs to be reached before anybody moves the page. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. The article is about Johnston and not about the impregnation of Sarah Palin's daughter. He might be notable for that, but the article is not about that event. Please move back at once. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 17:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to Presidency of Barack Obama, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Scjessey (talk) 16:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
