This is an archive of past discussions about User:Soxwon. 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.

Question re: Controversies/Public Image Article

I just reverted Jimintheatl's revert of your revert regarding the redirect (try saying that 10 times fast). As I've been out of the loop, I'm wondering if there was some agreement between the editors and closing admin allowing the article to stay up a little longer. It seems that he threatened sanctions for some reason and I want to make sure I didn't step in it accidentally. According to my watchlist Jim put the page back up about a week ago. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 19:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Karl Rove

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 several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Viriditas (talk) 21:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Salon.com

Salon.com, like other blogs, represents a fringe viewpoint.

Salon.com is not a blog, although it has bloggy features as one part of the site. Could you give me a reliable source that claims to portray Salon.com as a "fringe viewpoint", or are you joking? Viriditas (talk) 09:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Liberal != fringe. I think you must be joking. Viriditas (talk) 10:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I see you live in Boston. That might explain some of the problems communicating. Are you aware that on the west coast of the U.S., it is common to find Republicans who are socially liberal but fiscally conservative? Your use of the word "liberal" appears to be regional. Viriditas (talk) 10:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what "liberal" is supposed to mean in the context of a PEW poll. But since you brought it up, if you have a link, I would like to take a look at it. No hurry, of course. In my experience, most Americans are in the center, neither liberal nor conservative, and the facade of a false binary opposition masquerading as a "two-party" system only serves to distract the public from the real issues. Viriditas (talk) 10:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if the two of you sat down and chatted over beers, I think you would find a lot in common with Henry Gates. That's just it, really. The political discourse focuses primarily on what divides us, rather than what unites us. And it is this mindset that need to change. If the only tool you have is a hammer, you see every problem as a nail. In order to change the world, you have to change the way you see it, first. Everything follows from that first step. Viriditas (talk) 10:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Soxwon. You have new messages at Viriditas's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Soxwon. You have new messages at Rjanag's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Fox News Channel

Sorry about that, i really should have used an edit summary. Gamaliel (talk) 01:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Classical liberalism cont.

FYI: [1] The Four Deuces (talk) 01:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

My argument in the discussion was that although the term "classical liberalism" is used in different ways, the article should be about liberalism c. 1830-1900. There are already articles that discuss earlier and later periods of liberalism, but the article contains little information about this period. It would be helpful if you would look at the article and discussion page. The Four Deuces (talk) 02:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you would provide sources for your opinions rather than just revert. These articles are supposed to be based on reliable sources not our opinions and original arguments. What makes you think that America was established as a feudal state or that direct election of senators (which happened in the 20th century) has anything to do with whether or not America is a liberal state? The Four Deuces (talk) 04:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Modern liberalism in the United States

It would be helpful if you would discuss this article on the talk page and add suggestions. I still do not know what your opinions on the subject are - how it should be defined, its history etc. In the meantime, you have now reached 3 reverts in one day. So please provide suggestions on re-writing the article. The Four Deuces (talk) 13:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

At least you could explain your edits. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. I am sure that all these articles can be improved if we follow mainstream sources, present alternative views and criticisms for each subject and write them in neutral tones. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Warning

This edit was highly inappropriate:

Badmintonhist apparently agreed, as he made a similar change.
You reverted HIS approved version.
WP:BLP applies to all pages.
Your (strawman) assumption of bad faith violates WP:AGF, as I certainly would have made the same change on O'Reilly's page (or anywhere else), because...
People need to learn to make points without poisoning the language by namecalling and libelous attacks.

I'd guess your only intent was to try and stir the pot. That's certainly disruptive behavior which is starting to look like a longer term pattern of trying to taunt people onto an ideological battlefield. I strongly suggest you avoid making future edits that could color you in that sort of light. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I also have to ask why you thought you were allowed to refactor another editor's talk page post?— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 20:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

To fully disclose, Daedalus, I had refactored part of those same comments to remove incendiary language. The original poster (Badmintonhist) followed my intent to its logical conclusion and removed the flowery praise language too; Soxwon then went and reverted both of us, re-inserting rhetorical baiting language. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I know, I saw the diffs. My point was that he had the right to refactor his own posts, but that Sox did not have the right to revert him.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 21:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Racepacket RFC

The issue is not with the edits to the Miami football page but a general disruption with it and related articles as a whole. The peacock terms within the articles are generally stated by the references used to cite the statements being made.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Please address me on the RFC, not on my talkpage. I've done RFCs before, they should be kept in one place to avoid problems later down the road. I'm not trying to be rude, I just don't want this to become the bubbling shitfest my previous RFC/U became. Soxwon (talk) 23:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure of where exactly to reply to your comments on the main RFC page because I've never actually started an RFC and most of my involvement in them has been as the subject. I figured that I would clarify my point here, as it appears to me that you think only one article has been a problem.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Blax, Fox News, and NPR

Sox, if you haven't already done so, you should actually go to that NPR story that ol' Blaxthos referenced in his recent comments on the Fox News discussion page. It's amaaaaazing. The story isn't about a tie-in between Fox and the GOP at all. Blax took one comment to that effect made by a White House interviewee and pretended that the NPR story was about such a tie-in. Badmintonhist (talk) 02:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Capitalism

An editor is questioning the lack of sources in the lead for Capitalism. If you would like to discuss this please reply on the talk page. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration notification: Niteshift36 incivility and article ownership

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Niteshift36 incivility and article ownership and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks,Stargnoc (talk) 05:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Arguing with Idiots

Whether you've changed your position or not, will you come and respond here at your earliest convenience? J DIGGITY SPEAKS 03:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Happy Halloween!

Happy Halloween

Richard (talk) 21:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I care

I am not sure what your were apologizing for, but even if Malleus Fatuorum does not care I am personally impressed with any editor who is able to recognize a mistake they have made and apologize for it. Thank you, people who make an effort to be decent to each other are OK in my books. Chillum 03:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey Sox. I too was impressed by your comment. I'm having a hard time restraining myself from commenting on the above poster, however, as I have no idea why they would think it appropriate or helpful to post on that editor's talk page or to engage in discussions regarding them, but c'est la vie. Anyway, I was coming by to say hi and to see what you were up to. The elections yesterday were interesting on various fronts. Alright, well, take and enjoy yourself. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:Advocacy articles

is in its first draft and might well benefit from your opinions. Thanks! Collect (talk) 13:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

An apology

[2] I want to apologise for my rather curt response to your apology yesterday. It's rather a conundrum, because I don't take apologies seriously myself unless they go along with something rather more concrete. I offer mine nevertheless, and hope that you can understand that I was probably not in the most receptive frame of mind yesterday. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

ANI 2

I oppose banning anyone from ANI. I'm not sure how to convey that appropriately under the circumstance. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Affirmative. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

anarchism

i explained the mayoir changes. im ready too discuss them in the talk page. "changes made too quickly". i dont think it is a good argument. --Eduen (talk) 20:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Soxwon. You have new messages at A8UDI's talk page.
Message added 06:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

A8 UDI 06:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Check your facts before you make accusations

Hello Soxwon, I'll thank you to not use my name on the Karl Rove discussion page. I was not topic banned and only got a temporary block. If I want my name on the Karl Rove pages, I will put my name there myself.Malke 2010 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC).

Since we both agree...

...that full page protection is merited at Karl Rove, where did you request it? I'll be happy to join your request. Since the two editors in question appear to be determined to edit war, this seems to be the best way to go. Thanks for your reverts and request. Best wishes, Jus da fax 22:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

You can request protection at WP:RFPP. (sorry to butt in, sox) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Question

Re, your message, I believe it may have been too soon. In my personal opinion, I would have let him continue to edit war, then, as soon as he broke 3rr, reported him to the admins. That would still allow us to edit the article without his interference, and, once his block ends, hopefully he'll see the error of his ways. As an aside, I warned him about potentially breaking 3rr, so he has no excuse to continue.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 22:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Soxwon. You have new messages at A8UDI's talk page.
Message added 19:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

don't be afraid peach.

December 2009

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to User talk:A8UDI. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 18:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

(points to the countless vandalising morons who simply can't spell) Sorry for the mistake. I'll remove the warning. --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 18:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Holy crap you have a long talk page!

I didn't mean to replace your recent additions to Beck's BLP. I simply removed the "outlandish unsourced" claims. If you feel the need to replace what I removed, that's cool with me. J DIGGITY SPEAKS 21:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I second the thread heading. The coding is a mess to me (though AN/I is far worse...). I can set you up with an archive if you want? Consider it my way of trying to apologise further by trying to help out as much as possible. --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 21:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Very well. But if you need help with anything, give me a kick and I'll come a-running. --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 23:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

You kick wolves? Good on you. They ate my eyrie. Oh, my poor eggs... cut down before they could even hatch. No yolk. --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 23:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Just in case you don't want to do it yourself, here you go:

Reply

Didn't want this direct reply to get lost in the shuffle. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

SP

[3] its on iTunes if you wanna buy it for $2... so fucking funny A8 UDI 04:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Why? (User:A8UDI)

Why have you left? Soxwon (talk) 04:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

A8UDI left as he felt he was being attacked and that no-one was assuming good faith with him after recently mistakes with vandal fighting. See this last revision before retirement. I've reverted your comment as I believe users who have specifically stated that they have retired have their talk pages otherwise blanked (though I can understand Tanthalas39's edit to it). --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 04:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

DailyKos poll

Hello Soxwon. Though I agree with your recent revert on the Fox News article, Research 2000 is a nonpartisan research and polling firm. They were one of the best pollsters in the 2004 election, as well as in 2006 and 2008. Also of note is Research 2000 publishes all crosstabs(via DK) for their work to be examined. Like I wrote, I agree with your revert/edit, because of the acrimony in part, but we can't dismiss polling by Research 2000 just because Markos Moulitsas hired the firm. Of course, there is a sense of bias because of the bias of the people who hire you, but there has been no valid accusations of real bias noted against Research 2000. DD2K (talk) 12:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Reagan's Economic Data

So far no one has refuted my data (actually Bureau of Labor Statistics data). tuco_bad 05:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgersten (talk • contribs)

ltns

Amazing how some things creep up from the woodwork ... did you read WP:False consensus perchance? I beloieve it addresses how some admins get misled, to be sure. Happy New Year! Collect (talk) 03:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

3rr

You've violated WP:3RR on Keith Olbermann. You continue to revert edits that have been updated to conform to what you've suggested they haven't - therefore you appear to be engaging in an edit war. You will be blocked if you continue.Reality Maker (talk) 16:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

RM appears to have been treated to a 72H block. Collect (talk) 20:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Please take it easy...

The tone of this response is way overboard. Was it really necessary to be so WP:BITEy? – ukexpat (talk) 17:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Glenn Beck

I know I don't have to respond, and I appreciate you adding your voice to the argument. I am just tired of this...well, I'm not sure it Lynn is a he or a she, so...person, and their ignorant ideas and false accusations. I am going to argue this to the bitter end. Sorry if that offends you. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 19:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Rage Against Bush

If you don't like the phrase "media furor," I suggest you come up with a different phrase instead of removing the whole paragraph which includes sourced information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Voiceofveritas (talk • contribs) 20:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Sox---Do you have formal training on corporate law or are you just being a dick. Seems like you're pretty much the latter based on these other posts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Professor Todd (talk • contribs) 21:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Quick note on the 3RR template

Hi Sox, a quick note on the 3RR template.

Yes, technically it was incorrect, as you stayed within the 3RR rule quite admirably. However, in these cases it often seems to help if you give a quick warning to all parties involved as this forces the users to their talk page. Adding a template quickly also reduces the likelihood of users reverting another time, and thereby sparking the issue yet again. I hope you don't mind i sacrificed a bit of accuracy for speeds and preventions sake :). Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 22:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

3RR

The 3RR rule already was broken days ago, I don't see what difference it makes now. --Jonovision (talk) 01:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

So you want me to remove my last edit to his version? --Jonovision (talk) 01:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'll give him one last chance to revert and then I'll report him if he doesn't. Soxwon (talk) 01:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I'm Paleocon44 and, since you're already aware of ProfessorTodd, I'd like someone to know that on my Watchlist I have 2-of his entries. Thing is: I didn't do that. I don't understand most of what I read concerning the Edit Wars, Reverting, etc. Can someone use my Talkpage or sub-item, without my knowing it? I'm sure I'm being inappropriate here, so please excuse me. (Paleocon44 (talk) 06:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC))

Reverts to Bob McDonnell Article

I am sorry for exceeding the three revert rule. Per the talk page, we had already engaged in a discussion with the majority of editors believing that Galraedia's edits were unwarrented. Furthermore, Galraedia has resorted to name calling on the article talk page. Could you add a semi-protection tag on the page? Boromir123 (talk) 21:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Btw, I will steer clear of making edits on the article for the next 24 hours:) Boromir123 (talk) 22:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I can of course add the template, but that won't solve anything as an administrator needs to protect the article before it has any effect :). I dropped you, Galraedia and Soxwon a note on the issue, and i left a custom message at Galraedia for adding level 4 equivalent warning templates. I *hope* that this is enough to quell the current edit war (Sometimes a template can do wonders, as your comment shows), but if it remains to be an issue feel free to add a note on WP:AN3 or WP:ANI describing the situation. I don't think protection is in order as it would keep everyone from editing the article, not just the involved party's in the conflict. Kind regards, Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 22:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

There has been no name calling on the talk page other then Boromir123 and Soxwan's incapability to read. Also I would like to requests that these "majority of editors" be looked into because I have found two that have a history of conflicts with other editors and that have been accused of removing sections that do not conform to their bias. Thanks.Galraedia (talk) 22:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Ehm, technically you just said that both editors are biased, and that they cannot read. However, regardless of the situation, edit warring is not the answer and actually forbidden trough the WP:3RR rule, which you crossed. If you have a conflict with other editors you should first try to mediate it on the talk page, and if that does not work, seek a third opinion or dispute resolution. As any account can revert easily, you would be busy till next morning reverting eachother, and that would not help anyone at all :). Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 22:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Ehm, technically that is not "name-calling". They should actually consider it a compliment because there are far worser things that could be said about them; however, I choose to keep those things to myself. :) Mediating it on the talk page as you have suggested has done nothing to solve the problem. They believe that they have consensus although not everyone is in agreement, and if not everyone is in agreement how can they have consensus? And if I crossed any rule then so have they. However, since editors, such as Soxwan (who has a history of conflicts with others) is brown-nosing I don't really expect you to care.Galraedia (talk) 22:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Both Boromit123 and Soxwon made 3 reverts today, which means they (just) stayed within limits. I gave them a warning nonetheless to make sure they are not going over the limit. But even if they did your argument would be WAX, as you reverted 6 times today. Also, have a look at WP:Consensus. Consensus is rarely unanimous, and neither does it have to be (We would never, EVER get anything done around here if that was a requirement :-) ). From the reverts in the past few days it is visible that 5 editors have reverted your changes, and 2 (including yourself) seem to uphold them. At the very least we can conclude that you don't have consensus for your changes either.

As for me caring: Yes i do, or i wouldn't get myself involved with this edit war. Edit wars have never, ever solved a problem, and therefor i rather see them mediated or discussed instead of fought. I have restored the article to its pre-edit war state, and i HOPE the three, four, five of you - i don't care about the amount - can come to some form of compromise regarding this article. However, i have no issue taking this to WP:RPP if the edit war continuer's, or to WP:AN3 \ WP:ANI if there are more 3RR violations. I know i am replying to you at this time, but naturally this goes for any party involved. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 23:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Excirial did you even read the talk page on the article in discussion? The changes made were reverted before they even tried to reach a consensus. And if a person didn't see the section before it was reverted how could they possibly argue to keep something that they haven't even seen? Also, there were 3 people (including myself) who were okay with it. Like I told those against keeping the section, this is Wikipedia and not Faux News. Showing only one side of the story, as the editors in question want, doesn't present a NPOV. So, while you threaten me with a 3RR for changing it you also allow a violation to a NPOV. I believe that you are showing favoritism to editors like Soxwon for brown-nosing, because regardless of the conflicts that they seem to get in for removing other people's work they are allowed to remain here regardless of whether or not it was justified. I am not intimidated by you Excirial and I have another place in mind where you can put your RPP, AN3 and ANI. Galraedia (talk) 23:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

If I may jump in, Galraedia, as we have repeatedly stated, THE INFORMATION SHOULD GO IN! REPEAT, THE INFORMATION SHOULD GO IN! I have repeatedly stated this as have other editors. What we don't want is a controversy section as this is considered bad by wikipedia standards and, in general, does look bad. What is better is to find appropriate places in the article for the information to go. Honestly, we don't need to make a huge issue out of this but you refuse to compromise on how the information should be presented in even the slightest manner. Soxwon (talk) 00:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Galraedia, i am not trying to intimidate you, nor do i wish to threaten you with 3RR. If you believe my comment was meant that way then i am sorry, as i obviously didn't relay my intentions correctly. The only thing that i really care about, is trying to stop several editors from reverting each other over and over again. Generally this only sours relations between editors, and makes it unlikely people will even try to find a compromise, Most times unchecked edit wars end up in accusations from both sides, mostly not even on the subject anymore. For what it is worth: I personally believe information should be unbiased, and yes, that means criticism should be allowed - provided it is reliably sourced and not taking up 90% of the article. Seeing Sox comment i would say both of you agree that it should be kept. However, the issue here is how it should be presented in the article (A separate section or merged in the rest of the text). Since both of you already agree on the content, is it really that hard to debate the presentation of that content? :)

I would urge you all to find some middle ground where everyone is happy or at least acceptive, or that you seek dispute resolution. Reverting each other over and over ad infinitum won't ever solve anything, and those situations just tend to end in page protection, ani drama and all kind of other consequences i prefer seeing used against vandals, instead of constructive editors. And yes, i would label everyone here as constructive, as all of you at least take the time to discuss things. :) Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 08:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Professor Todd

The User has done nothing but insult, swear, and has been downright unworkable. Compare these two edits: [4] and [5] and the edits on the talk page. It's the same user and he's got 6 reverts today. Should I go straight to AN/I or just 3RR? Soxwon (talk) 01:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

It would seem that Jonovion already made a report at ANI at this time, so i think that renders the question moot. In general i would say SSP if you believe he is abusing that IP, WP:WQA if you believe he is just outside civility guidelines, WP:AN3 if the user is edit warring, yet trying to improve the article, and WP:ANI if you believe this is both not civil nor constructive. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 08:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Could I get your input...

here please. Soxwon (talk) 20:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure. However, make sure you also give the to IP users a notice that this case is in progress. Templating them should be quick enough, and it should remove any canvassing issues. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 20:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh and by the way, isn't it time to archive your talk page? It is growing rather large with stale sections :) Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 20:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

With regards to my talkpage, meh, I kinda like it, reflects my oh so organized personality :). I'll slap a bot on there some day... Soxwon (talk) 20:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

There we go, i added my comment. Quite interesting that the 138. IP seems to be related to the university of San Fransisco - The "Dude" in front of that line made me doubt the comment but seeing that it might very well be true - or perhaps he is a student. Who knows?

As for your talk page: Its a prefab, so you only need to slap it on top of your talk page if you ever feel the need :P Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 21:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

{{User:MiszaBot/config |archiveheader = {{user:Soxwon/ArchiveTemplate}} |maxarchivesize = 100K |counter = 1 |minthreadsleft = 8 |algo = old(4d) |archive = User talk:Soxwon/Archive %(counter)d }}

I can see the student a bit, but honestly, I cannot think of a professor telling another person to quote "Blow Me." Just can't really. Soxwon (talk) 21:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Reverted without explanation

Hey, you reverted my edit without explanation here. Any reason? I was putting back stuff (recently removed here) that was in the source but I was eliminating the stuff not supported by the citation. Thanks for your time. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 14:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Judit Polgár

At one time ranked world no. 8, she broke Fischer's record as the youngest grandmaster. Susan Polgar and Humpy Koneru have done not bad, Hou Yifan is coming up, but at present I don't think you can dispute this claim. Also it was misuse of the minor change flag to use it for a controversial change like this. PatGallacher (talk) 00:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

It's clear you don't know much about chess. Please leave this article alone. Quale (talk) 01:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Todd

Hi Soxwon, I saw the latest abuse you've been getting from Professor Todd, so I've posted a notice on ANI. The discussion is here: [6] --Jonovision (talk) 08:50, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

FAIR

Hi. In the past you participated in a discussion regarding the appropriateness of using FAIR as an RS. The question has arisen again, in this case with regard to a BLP. The issue is being discussed at the RSN here. Your thoughts would, of course, be welcome. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

One question, if you are a christian (i am as well) then why do you Believe in Darwinism

Karl rove religion thing

You were previously involved in a discussion involving the removal of a few paragraphs on the Karl Rove page regarding his religious affiliation. I'm just notifying you that the same user removed the content again and I thought you would want to be involved in the discussion since you were previously.Chhe (talk)

This is called WP:CANVASS, and Soxwon, I was the one who wrote the paragraph. It's been viewed now as a BLP violation.Malke 2010 00:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Its not canvassing because Soxwon was already deeply involved in this exact same removal in Karl Rove that you made previously.Chhe (talk) 00:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

No, he didn't contribute either. I wrote the section, I got the consensus, I added it in, not any of you. You're violating policy. Again.Malke 2010 00:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Arguing with Idiots

I have brought back up a discussion in the Arguing with Idiots Talk Page(I'd link you but I'm not sure how) and see that you were a contributor to the former discussion. I'm rounding up the people from the previous discussion. Any input would be appreciated. :) Ink Falls 02:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Back again

See anything familiar? If you ever notice more of this drivel polluting talk pages, just post on my talk page and I'll take care of it. Thanks, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

BTW, thanks for catching that. I had Wage labor on my watchlist mainly to see if she showed up again, but somehow missed it. I added a few more pages to my watch based on more recent activity. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Media Matters for America mediation

A request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to Media Matters for America was recently filed. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is entirely voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. Please review the request page and the guide to mediation requests and then indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation should request to the talk page.

Thank you, AGK 13:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

The request for mediation concerning Media Matters for America, to which you were are a party, has been accepted. Please watchlist the case page (which is where the mediation will take place). For guidance on accepted cases, refer to this resource. A mediator should be assigned to this dispute within two weeks. If you have any queries, please contact a Committee member or the mediation mailing list.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK 14:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Message delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.

Opening statement for Media Matters mediation

If possible could you soon submit your opening statement for the above mentioned mediation? I'm leaving on vacation in a couple of days and would like to say a few things before I go, but am waiting for all the opening statements to be made. Thanks. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't agree

It should be arbitrary break. Sidetrack? Who says it's a sidetrack? In whose opinion. What is most definately NPOV is "arbitary break". There is absolutely no reason why the standard title can't be used. And there was no "could be construed" about it, that was a personal attack. I changed it to "arbitrary break" and he reverted back to his attack title. Then you changed to the current one, which I reverted to "arbtrary break".Niteshift36 (talk) 05:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

True, the current doesn't constitute a personal attack. I didn't say it did. It does push a POV that everything following is an "attempt to sidetrack". NPOV may not apply, but WP:TPG does. "Keep headings neutral: A heading should indicate what the topic is, but not communicate a specific view about it.". That communicates the view that everything following is "an attempt to sidetrack". Niteshift36 (talk) 05:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

email

please check Tommy2010 [message] 05:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 17:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not allow personal attacks!

You commented my arguments in 9/11 truth movement with personal attack, I suggest you leave wikipedia or retain from personal attacks and try to produce an argument if you can. Juhobui (talk) 19:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Can I just add that Soxwon has a tendency to make personal attacks and stir up shit for no reason except that someone disagrees with his admitted conservative right-wing views. Soxwon deserves no admin privileges imo— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.96.124 (talk)

Regardless of the accuracy of your statement, doesn't the statement you (98.207.96.124) just made run afoul of WP:NPA as well? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Description of goalkeeping error by Robert Green

Yesterday someone made an edit to the Robert Green page, removing a quote that described his error last week as a 'moment of calamity' or something similar. This edit left the description of the incident sounding very flat. There was no sense from the description that it was a catastrophic mistake. Therefore I edited the passage, describing Green's failure to save Dempsey's shot as "a serious mistake". I also made a reference to the long-range shot being "relatively innocuous". I see you have now reverted my edit on the grounds that it is not supported by an external reference. Did you read the existing citation (at http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/world_cup_2010/matches/match_05) ? The cited article says that Green "suffered a World Cup nightmare" and that he "suffered the lapse that will haunt him". The article goes on to describe the incident as follows: '"Clint Dempsey offered an effort that was little more than pot luck from 25 yards, but Green hopelessly allowed the ball to squeeze through him and roll agonisingly over the line as he tried to recover". I would therefore suggest that the existing citation supports my interpretation of the mistake by Green and that my edit should be restored, or something comparable put in place. Dubmill (talk) 11:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I have not yet had a reply from you to my remarks concerning your reversion of my edit to the Robert Green page. Please have the courtesy to reply to my comments. Dubmill (talk) 21:29, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Msg on my talk page

I'm not sure if that was something automated that runs under your account or not. In any case, I'm perfectly fine with my edits, and none of the other involved editors mentioned a problem either. BigK HeX (talk) 20:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The obvious reasons listed for my edit are "Fixing format errors" and "Sectioning".... which are clearly listed at WP:TPG. I'd prefer not to be reverted by an editor with absolutely no involvement in a discussion which is getting convoluted, especially when the editors who are actually involved have made no mention of there being a problem. Personally, I think the involved editors are more than able to hit the revert button, and/or admonish me personally, if anything objectionable had occured, but at the least it would be nice not to be charged with vandalism. BigK HeX (talk) 21:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Hm

Just so you know, the kitten helped me notice there was still an autoblock in place. Thanks, –xeno^talk 02:25, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Really all unecessary IMO, if people were blocked for that level of incivility we'd run out of editors in a week. Soxwon (talk) 02:27, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's probably best to stick to the issues rather than the way they are being debated. CIV is something the community simply can't get a handle on. –xeno^talk 02:39, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Vomitstains

A concern has been expressed that this is a sock, see the userpage. Do you know of related evidence, for a possible WP:SPI case? -- Cirt (talk) 03:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Nod, agreed. I have asked the editor that placed the tag on the user's page, to elaborate a bit. -- Cirt (talk) 03:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Query

Who is the master account on that sock? Can you file a WP:SPI on it, and/or get a checkuser to look into it? -- Cirt (talk) 03:18, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring

I have reported your continued edit warring. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

July 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Talk:Glenn Beck has been reverted, as it appears to have removed content from the page without explanation. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. — $Jeff G. ツ$ 02:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Hello Soxwon, LegitimateAndEvenCompelling has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks. I see you are reverting or otherwise editing regarding some of Badger Drinks mass reverts of my many MMfA WP:RS edits. I also see you are doing so for legitimate (and even compelling) reasons other than WP:RS. If you wish to give me advice on improving the basis for my MMfA edits, I'm all ears. Thanks again. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

So why are you insisting on unilaterally closing the discussion when you yourself initiated the thread? Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 05:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I was mulling over doing an RFC on all those sources. Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 06:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying that Fox News will come after me personally? Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 06:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Soxwon, I've started the RfC regarding MMfA, MRC, FAIR, Newsbusters etc. Please continue to participate on the Reliable Sources Talk page here. Skoal. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Retirement?

Soxwon, please don't even consider this. From my limited memory, it seems like you do good work around here. I have the climategate scandal, er, controversey, er, event, er, thingy that took place, on my watchlist, don't know why, since I wouldn't touch that crap with a 100 foot pole. That has to be by far the most disputed, fought over mess, I have ever seen. It makes I/P editors look like chummy friends. Anyways, my I suggest you step back from that mess and not watch it for one week. I bet if you return, absolutely nothing will have changed or have gotten done. Talk about ground hog day, all over. Anyways, feel free to delete this and tell me to go soak my head :) Cheers! --Tom (talk) 14:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Keep up the good work

Hey I've looked at your previous edits and i have to say you're one of the few editors I've seen in a while who can edit things with a NPOV tone (way better than me haha...but I'm trying). Keep up the good work buddy. JahnTeller07 (talk) 22:42, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, JahnTeller07 has been indefinitly blocked as a sock puppet of a banned user. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

your suggestion re

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Preciseaccuracy#Couldn.27t_help_notice_your_post_on_Jimbo.27s_page... Preciseaccuracy (talk) 20:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

News Corporation Donation To Republican Governors Association

First of all, I do not work for nor am at all involved with DailyKOS nor any of its writers and contributors. I merely wanted it to be on record that News Corporation, Fox News Parent Company, had recently donated $1 million to the Republican Governors Association. The New York Times reported the story on August 17th, despite other news sources reluctance to do so. I made no reference to Rupert Murdoch. I cited my source from the New York Times own website. You moved the notation to a different (and I would AGREE) more relevant section of the Fox News page. Then you deleted it. I put it back. You've deleted it again. Hmmmm. I noticed that you've been reported for edit warring before, so I'm reinserting this without discussion because the fact of this donation is not in dispute. Why should we have to 'discuss' facts that are not in dispute? If you are going to remove it, I believe you owe all of us who read and care about the future of Wikipedia and the free and transparent communication of facts and knowledge an explanation for this deletion. While I agree that the continued vandalism of Wikipedia by both sides of the aisle is counterproductive, I disagree that anyone should remove simple statements of facts because they think them unimportant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkSummoner (talk • contribs) 03:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Contentious edits

Please don't give me the standard 'Wikipedia is a community' defense. The whole point of an encyclopedia is to record human history. ALL OF IT. Countless millenia of human history both great and minute is lost because no one wrote it down.

Fact. News Corp donated the money. Fact. They own Fox News Channel. Why is this fact and the inclusion of its reporting by the New York Times contentious other than with people who defend Fox News and its right leaning tendencies?

Wikipedia is not designed to be a collection of all things said and done. If you want to start a collection of everything, go right ahead, but that is WP:NOT what wikipedia is about. Arzel (talk) 04:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Funniest Commercial I've seen in a long time...

My sock was not trolling!! I've invested 6 weeks in this stocking, lets not get it blocked before Its time. 68.28.104.247 (talk) 01:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

How dare you. You have no proof. I demand that you cancel this investigation. Hinata talk 01:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.28.104.248 (talk)

LOL, that is some kind of way of impersonating me. BTW, I never did that. Hinata talk 13:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Newscorp

There is now discussion in the media about the connection between Newscorp's contributions and Fox News. I agree that it should be covered, but I have opposed editors who try to make the connection themselves. It is disappointing that the opponents of Fox News have never presented high quality sources to defend their views. TFD (talk) 02:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Soxwon. I just wanted to drop a note and say thanks for the good job you did in analyzing all the include !votes in the Fox News (actually NewsCorp) donation RfC [7]. It looked tedious, but I think it will be helpful. Although I don't personally think the non-SPA editors that haven't been recently active or haven't edited that page should necessarily be given less weight in evaluating consensus. SPAs are, of course, a different story. BTW, you might find this discussion interesting. Thanks. — Becksguy (talk) 19:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space

Hey there Soxwon, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Soxwon/Edits2. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

See a log of files removed today here.

Shut off the bot here.

Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Partisan sources

I have proposed an edit for the mainspace of an important Wikipedia policy, the Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources policy. Essentially, I believe that some sources are so partisan that using them as "reliable sources" invites more problems than they're really worth. You've previously participated in the RfC on this subject, or another related discussion indicating that you are interested in this important policy area. Please indicate here whether you support or oppose the proposed edit. The original discussion is here. Thanks. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 01:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

BLP/N

Currently there appears to be some who believe an editorial is RS for factual claims about people (the Kochs). Please look over that way, and correct me where I am in error. Thanks! Collect (talk) 19:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: Sources on FNC

Since you are interested in adding good sources to Fox News Channel, will you also be adding scholarly sources, including journalism-related articles and books? Viriditas (talk) 22:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Calling spades

Hi Soxwon. Thank you for your note. It certainly deserves a thoughtful and reasoned response, but I'm a little short on time right now and won't be back online for several days. I just wanted to let you know I wasn't ignoring you. :) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 09:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Liberalism=

Here is a link to a chapter that explains the dominance of liberalism. Political realism is not really an ideology, just an approach to politics. There are realists across the political spectrum. TFD (talk) 15:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Reverting without discussion (Jesus)

You have several edits to Historicity of Jesus (mostly reverts), but not a single comment on the Talk page. Please don't edit that way--it's disruptive and leads to warring. People will feel entitled to revert your revert if you haven't tried to work toward consensus, and entitlement to revert reverts leads to warring. Noloop (talk) 19:26, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Stop patronizing at Talk:Fox News Channel

Hello, Soxwon. You have new messages at PrBeacon's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Who seems to have it quite wrong. Collect (talk) 21:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Restoring Honor Rally

Thank you; it would be best if editors settled that on the talk page first if the lede is to change. I would agree with you that Michelle Bachmann's estimate is absurd, but her guess isn't based on anything more or less substantial than any of the other guesstimates by the uninformed media and Glenn Beck. Only the scientific study by CBS News of 87k plus or minus 9k has any realistic validity, but that issue is currently tied up in ongoing mediation here: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Restoring_Honor_rally. Please feel free to join us if you'd like to participate. AzureCitizen (talk) 17:42, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I would have no objection to you joining and making an opening statement. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 18:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Soxwon. Welcome to hell. Your input in this matter would most welcome. Your opening statement on the talk page looks good, but you forgot to add your name to the list of involved parties on the main page. Along with most everyone else, I agree that Bachmann's guesstimate is absurd, but then I consider any figure beyond ~100K to be equally absurd, equally unsubstantiated, equally wrong. If the Bachmann figure is to remain in the article, it should only be allowed as an example in support of the reliably sourced content explaining how event organizers always exaggerate attendance. (Yes, I consider her an 'organizer' in that she ran her own mini-rally on the fringes of Beck's event.) So why did I revert your removal of the Bachmann figure? Simple: the 1.6mil figure presence in the article forces editors to re-evaluate their justifications for keeping the 200K, 300K and 500K figures in the article. It exemplifies, in an extreme way, the deficiencies with those other inflated guesstimates that people are more inclined to let pass simply because they are less extreme. Good luck to the editor trying to justify a 300K estimate as plausible while not also justifying the Bachmann number at the same time, based on the same criteria. The Bachmann number forces a truth test. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Indefinite Block of BS24

BS24 is on indefinite block for abusing multiple accounts. [8] This editor has had many socks and is likely to return under a new account. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't be surprised if you get acused of being a sock. AKA and IP82 are on a mission. Arzel (talk) 23:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Glad you hopped in. Just a note, I clearly said you weren't a sock. Unfortunately the blocked editor BS24 has a lot of socks, and probably has at least one active that no one has named yet. So it's kinda messy now. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 13:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

in re "bump"

Hello, Soxwon. You have new messages at PrBeacon's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

===Editing on Sean Hanity.===

Thanks for adding the 3rr warning on my Talk Page. Maybe you should be discussing issue on talk page, and referencing your additions/deletions rather than section blanking. You are page blanking and deleting referenced information. The section blanking has been reported for Vandalism. Please reference any changes deletions, or additions you are making, and also discuss those changes on talk page rather than starting an edit war, then trying to get a lock or block via 3rr. You made revisions with no reference or reasons for the deletion/blanking. The facts are referenced and meet wp:v wp:wellknown. PLease justify reference any changes. The edits your reverted drew info from the same articles you reverted too. EG: You want to include votevet.org is a "liberal group" why not include that the same articles include it is a veterans group composed of Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans?? Bluebadger1 (talk) 19:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)