Talk:Margaret Trudeau/Archives/2015

Lead
The lead is by far the worst lead I've ever seen on wiki. It's one long sentence that is completely unacceptable for inclusion in a encyclopedia.  Caden  cool  23:50, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Feel free to expand it. JAG  UAR   00:07, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? Where did I say it needed to be expanded?  Caden  cool  04:44, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * "It's one long sentence that is completely unacceptable for inclusion in a encyclopedia". What else could have been suggesting? Juvenile comments like "The lead is by far the worst lead I've ever seen on wiki" is far from helpful. Instead of posting a provocative message on its talk page, why don't you take the liberty to expand it?  JAG  UAR   10:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I never implied or said the lead needed to be expanded. Don't you ever try putting words in my mouth again. My post was referring to the single overly long run-on sentence that is the size of a paragraph as a lead. Your juvenile behavior is childish and not helpful. Furthermore you stalking my edits is disruptive. Remove me from your watchlist and stop following me around. It's creepy, very creepy. Oh and since your pretending to be interested in Margaret Trudeau then why don't you expand the lead? Not that it needs it but since you keep bringing it up, why don't you do it instead of harassing me.  Caden  cool  16:01, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Margaret Trudeau has been on my watchlist for almost a year. Along with Pierre Trudeau, Monarchy of Canada, Governor General of Canada and Patriation. They are among the 6,447 pages on my watchlist. I also watch several articles on American and Argentine politicians too, so I'm hardly "stalking your edits" or putting words into your mouth. I saw you pop up on my watchlist last night and when I read your topic regarding the lead I thought I would point out to you WP:SOFIXIT instead of announcing that it was "the worst lead" you've ever seen. Ironic how I'm supposedly being childish, when you can't even spell properly. Let me correct those 'errors' for you: since your pretending - since you're pretending, in a encyclopedia - in an encyclopedia. JAG  UAR   16:22, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Never once have I ever seen you edit this article and it's been on my watchlist for years. Suddenly yesterday you showed up from nowhere. How interesting. I call that stalking. You have been doing that because of your friend. Remove me from your watchlist and stop following me around. As for the lead, it is the worst lead because it is one single never ending run-on sentence that is the size of a paragraph. If you can't see that then that's your problem.  Caden  cool  16:35, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I do see the problem. I made an attempt in expanding it but there's too much unreliable and messy content in the body that makes it difficult write anything the moment. I'll remove this page from my watchlist now, but I only replied to you because I don't like it when you have these outbursts, as they're insulting to other editors. Also, I've never had your user page on my watchlist. Ever. Nor do I know what you're on about a "friend". Anyway, goodbye. JAG  UAR   16:42, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

"Margaret Joan Sinclair (born September 10, 1948), known by her married name Trudeau, is an author, actress, photographer, former television talk show hostess, and social advocate for people with bipolar disorder; the former wife of Pierre Trudeau, 15th Prime Minister of Canada; and the mother of Justin Trudeau, 23rd Prime Minister of Canada, and his brothers Alexandre and Michel."  Caden  cool  16:46, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * For the interest of other editors, here is the lead I'm referring to:
 * For the record, Jaguar is correct here — while I grant that the introduction is not well-written in its existing form, it's never considered productive or constructive on Wikipedia to simply complain on a talk page about something that you have the full ability to fix yourself. If there were information in the article that you were unsure about and couldn't verify anywhere with any sources that you have access to, then it would be perfectly appropriate to ask on the talk page if anybody had sources for it beyond what you could access — because different people have access to different resources, I might be able to properly source something you can't and vice versa. But if you're not taking issue with the content, but merely with the form in which the content is presented, then the appropriate action is to WP:SOFIXIT rather than complaining that somebody else isn't fixing it for you. Especially if it's true that, as you claim, you've been watchlisting this article for years and thus have had many opportunities before this to do something about it.
 * Also, Caden, you seem to have taken this discussion way too personally — just calm down and assume good faith next time, rather than accusing somebody of wikistalking you just because they respond to a comment, okay? Bearcat (talk) 19:50, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Firt off, I was not complaining. That is your opinion of me based on your assumptions which are incorrect. You are not me, therefore you can not assume what I think, say, or do. Secondly, I never mentioned any concerns with verification nor did I ask for any sources. Again that is you assuming things about me. You are not me so do not assume things about me. I came here with the intent to get feedback from other editors on the lead which is an overly long run-on sentence the size of a paragraph. If asking for feedback is a crime then charge me. Lastly, there is a history between Jaguar and myself that relates to a very good close friend of his, who has hated my guts for years. His friend has made my life hell on wiki for two long years so AGF died out long ago. Jaguar appearing here out of the blue was not accidental, it was intentional. In regards to Margaret Trudeau feel free to help out in anyway you can.  Caden   cool  21:07, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * First off, I did not make any "assumptions" about you as a person — I responded to your words exactly as they lay on the page. You may not think you were intending to post a complaint, but a complaint is exactly what the comment in question is. And secondly, I don't, and Wikipedia doesn't, give two poops about what personal private drama you have with somebody offline; as long as you're interacting on Wikipedia, you still have the exact same obligation to assume good faith and to behave in a civil manner that you would have with any other editor. Bearcat (talk) 22:19, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Good grief here we go again with your inaccurate assumptions. First off, it did NOT happen offline, it happened here online on wikipedia so no I can not AGF based on two years of hell at the hands of his buddy who is an editor on wiki. Secondly, yes you did make assuptions of me and no my post was not a complaint. You are not me. And guess what? I do not give two poops on what you think about me or my post. I have nothing more to discuss with you. I have better things to do with my time. Goodbye.  Caden   cool  22:57, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The exact text of what you posted to initiate this discussion was a complaint, whether you see it that way or not — I "assumed" nothing about you, and responded exactly correctly to the exact text and the exact tone of exactly the words you said. And it doesn't matter whether your issue with some other person happened online, offline, in your own head — you still have to follow WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL no matter what, who, where, when or why. Bearcat (talk) 23:04, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No I do not follow AGF with editors who posted such degrading comments about me on talk pages about me "masturbating" or about me loving porn or about me being a wanker. Nor do I have to follow AGF with those same editors who have told me many times to "fuck off" or who called me a "twat" all over wikipedia. No thanks Bearcat but I'm done with that type of abuse. Therefore AGF is impossible in regards to certain editors. Now please leave me alone.  Caden  cool  23:18, 18 December 2015 (UTC)