User talk:Big Orange

Edit warring
Please stop, and return to Talk:James O'Keefe. You have made several declarations of an intent to re-insert the material day after day, and that isn't going to be viewed very highly if you go before WP:AN/EW. Tarc (talk) 15:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Something I thought I'd point out
for your benefit. . . Martha Stewart and Bernie Madoff are both convicted criminals, the latter of whom is serving over a hundred years in prison and defrauded well-meaning people out of millions. O'Keefe has not done anything even remotely resembling such, or been convicted of anything. That is, unless you've already convicted him in your own mind. MudskipperMarkII (talk) 18:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

All you've pointed out is proof of your own dissembling.
Mudskipper, are you NOT reading what you're commenting on--or what? (And what does that say? Hmmmmm.) I clearly stated that the Madoff entry about his home detention was up way before he went to trial. You've chosen to either ignore that--or you never really read it in the first place. All you are doing is dissembling with an agenda other than the truth. This will be obvious to any neutral monitor--and I will continue to correct the removal of important relevant information that is included in other wiki entries== but is, for political reasons, being lobbied against (in this case) on talk pages by you. If the Madoff entry, for example, didn't include mention of his home confinement prior to his conviction--then, you might have a leg to stand on. The record proves your talk page arguments wrong. Proves the deletions (whether by you or others wrong)--and completely puts me in the right to restore the valid text and sources. Furthermore, the continued insertion of the word, "prominence" over the more accurate word, "attention," in the introduction should disqualify whomever that person is from further comment. I don't know who that person may be...but I'm sure the moderator does. Big Orange (talk) 19:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not the one that is "not reading what I'm commenting on" . . . that seems to be your job. You deliberately equivocated O'Keefe with Madoff, Stewart and Kerik, stating that if their Wikipedia entries list them as being under house arrest then this one should too.  You are deliberately confusing the matter by demanding to include such things, and you are confusing me for someone who cares about the words "prominence" and "attention," let alone even put them into the article.  If anything, your conduct toward anyone who you view to be approaching this matter with "an agenda other than the truth" - which quite frankly smacks of know-it-all smugness - should disqualify *you* from further comment.  No one cares about your petty wish to ridicule him - if you want to talk about reading what people post, did you even bother to check what I said about your wording and the connotations thereof?


 * You have continued, multiple times, in your hyper-defensive pattern, grabbing at straws for anything that might constitute a valid reason to leave something that doesn't matter worth a damn and never will in the article. Your attitude has been before and is openly hostile.  You have been warned multiple times that your attitude is unjustifiable by other editors.  Even, to boot, by ones such as Tarc - who may or may not agree with you politically, I don't know and I don't care.  I will remind you, you were the one who stated on the article's talk page


 * So, no. I'm not going to be meek with MY edits. And if Wiki blocks me...no sweat.


 * which is an open admission that you're what some people call a shit disturber.


 * Let me ask you this, is the failure to note down the exact words "living with his parents" going to cause legal proceedings in this matter to be derailed? Is the failure going to cause someone to meet bodily harm?  Is it going to cause a fender-bender for Rayes' expensive car?  A frozen bank account?  The death of the firstborn?  Skeletonization by homicidal kittens?


 * I'm pretty sure I know what the answer is, which is incidentally the same answer as to whether or not the revelation even matters. By your stubbornness, you signal that not only do you feel he warrants the same level of scrutiny delivered to a convicted criminal, but also a level of vitriol that you wouldn't deliver to a convicted criminal.  If I were you, given all the content on the article's talk page related to your excessive fixation on the matter as well as your in-depth twisting of the matter to make it seem as something that it is not - I'd venture to say that you shouldn't make guesses on what "will be obvious to a neutral monitor."


 * Good day to you. MudskipperMarkII (talk) 08:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * P.S. If you are - as you said in the talk page - "personally offended" by "defacement" of your writings then may I suggest that Wikipedia is not the right place for you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MudskipperMarkII (talk • contribs) 08:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey BigOrange, I saw your O'Keefe talk page comment (which someone else deleted as over the top, I guess). There's no doubt in my mind that people who know O'Keefe have edited his page, it just makes a neutral editor's job harder, but it happens.--Milowent (talk) 15:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)