User talk:LedRush/Archive002

"the list"
It's not necessary for you to annotate that list with reasons why you think particular users should be ignored or dismissed or otherwise have their opinion given diminished weight. If you really wish to do so, please make a separate comment below the list indicating which names you think should be "disqualified" or otherwise stricken from the list. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 15:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Spaces after period
Here's some info about it. I agree with you that one space is an outrage. :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 17:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I noticed your question on KC's talk page. Perhaps the best place to ask your question would be Reference desk/Language‎. The MoS says There is no guideline on whether to use one space or two after the end of a sentence (see Double spaced sentences), but the issue is not important, because the difference is visible only in edit boxes; i.e., it is ignored by browsers when displaying the article. (see here). Like you, I learned that sentences should always be separated by two spaces, but that is just a relic of typewriter days (so it would seem). HTML and thus most webpages ignore multiple spaces. The Chicago MoS has adopted the single space, and I recall learning not to double space in my college level typography courses. Anyway, the reference desk could probably give you even more info, or read the article on the subject. But in summary, it isn't necessary to add more than one space here on wikipedia because it will not show up outside of the edit window. Hope this helps.-Andrew c [talk] 15:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

An inappropriate warning about Barack Obama
I am leaving this warning as an uninvolved editor. Do not continue reinserting controversial material into the Obama article. This is a biography of a living person, and if you continue to reinsert such material, you will be blocked. SDJ 03:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * For the records, my actions were appropriate and consensus was to keep the language as we had agreed (vindicating my response). I didn't insert any material at all (controversial or otherwise), I merely fixed a broken citation and stopped another editor from changing consensus language.  This warning was obviously inappropriate and comes from an uninformed editor. (I forgot to sign this...it was written on about 04:00, 14 January 2009)LedRush (talk) 18:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

And you're absolutely right. I was wrong, and I apologize. I should have checked more thoroughly before warning you there. SDJ 14:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

We need a ref
Thanks for your continued participation in this discussion. I am finding it to be slightly maddening. I often find myself wishing that an authority figure who could step in to give a final pronouncement on what we discuss. I might disagree with the decision but at least we could put an end to this "I-agree/No-I-disagree" back-and-forth which often seems to go nowhere. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I was thinking the same thing last night. I almost enlisted Killer or SB to come in again, but they will be quite reluctant to make any content decisions.LedRush (talk)

Thanks...
Flattered that you offered. I've been swamped with Real Life at the moment, but I'll put that on the to-do list as things loosen up a bit. Been traveling quite a bit lately, but occasionally these trips provide the greatest opportunity for me to contribute from a peaceful hotel room in the evenings. We'll see how things goes when I'm in California for the next couple weeks. I was considering a wrap-up from the paying commitments this summer and retiring to a quiet chunk of desert somewhere, but every time the idea percolates near fruition with the better half, something arises to change my mind and stick around DC. I'm still hopeful! :) Fcreid (talk) 20:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Union busting
Hey, LedRush! Sure, I don't mind taking a look, but I'm running behind, :) I already promised someone that I would look at Francesca Dani, and I promised Collect that I would look at William Timmons. Sorry for being so slow! Kelly  hi! 22:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Goldsztajn refactor
You absolutely misused the template on editing talk page articles.


 * 1) Goldsztajn is an established editor, using a "welcome" template is considered a breach of etiquette by many, please read the essay WP:TEMPLAR. This is different from actionable warnings as part of dispute resolution, for which even regulars might be templated - such as personal attacks or WP:3RR. In the future, when dealing with little things you might consider a more personal approach: after all, dispute resolution should be about find resolutions to issues, not escalating them.
 * 2) You are mistaken in your reading of WP:TALK as applied to this situation, as it specifically says: Minor refactoring edits are still appropriate. in the sections about "other's comments". All that Goldsztajn did, when editing your comments, was expand his user name from "Gold" to "Goldsztajn". That is universally considered a "minor refactoring edit" as it didn't obscure nor change the meaning of your words, it just served the purpose of clarifying to whom you are refering to.

I suggest you apologize to Goldsztajn and in the future refrain from misusing policy, and that if in the future you feel policy has been misused, try to resolve the conflict in a more personal and productive fashion.--Cerejota (talk) 16:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This content of the above post is stupid, and its placement here insulting. 1. I told Goldsztajn to stop changing my edits twice before I templated him.  I used the lowest level so as not to insult or offend him.  2. Your reading of the policy is absurd.  The part you quoted is in talking about the past practice of summarizing talk pages.  At the top it says, "It is not necessary to bring talk pages to publishing standards, so there is no need to correct typing/spelling errors, grammar, etc. It tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Do not strike out the comments of other editors without their permission."(emphasis in original).  I consider this the end of the discussion and will delete any response by you which is as antaganostic as the one above.LedRush (talk) 21:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Huangshan GA review
Hi LedRush, the GA review for Mount Huang just began, and the reviewer has left a question at Talk:Mount Huang/GA1 regarding an unreferenced statement about the formation of the mountains during the Mesozoic era. Since you added a book ref a while back about some Quaternary period geological stuff, I was wondering if you still have that book handy, and could check to see if it also supports the statement about the Mesozoic? It looks to me like it probably does, but I just figured we might as well check... Thanks! Politizer talk / contribs 20:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Cerejota (talk) 03:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikiquette_alert
I need a third party to look at this, so I raised Wikiquette_alerts. You have been needlessly rude to me, I am quite frankly surprised. --Cerejota (talk) 04:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * For the record, no one found any incivility in my responses, though concern was raised both about Cerejota's and Goldzjatan's actions.LedRush (talk) 17:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

How to give Politizer and others a barnstar
You wrote:


 * == Congrats on Mount Huang; You deserve a barnstar ==


 * If I knew how to give you a barnstar, I totally would. Great work on improving the article and getting it up to GA status.  I'll get the last fact tag gone when I check the book tomorrow (I keep it at my office now).LedRush (talk) 00:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Go to:

Barnstar

Copy message ~, or any of the other codes.

Paste it on politizer's page.

Save.

Hope this helps. Ikip (talk) 12:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikiversity project on Wikipedia and the 2008 US elections
Hi LedRush. I started a project on Wikiversity a few weeks ago but got distracted by other things for a while. The project, Wikipedia and the 2008 US elections, is a research project aimed at describing the process of creating good, NPOV articles about topics that tend to stir very strong points of view in those contributing to the articles. The 2008 elections seem a good subject for the study, since it was a very "hotly debated" topic for a long time, but unlike similarly long-disputed topics (such as the Middle East Conflict), it has a slightly more defined starting point and ending point (though of course many of the articles are still being intensely debated).

The Sarah Palin article is one of the first "beta" studies, so since you were involved with improving that article, I hoped you could help experiment with the Sarah Palin resource. I would also greatly appreciate any feedback or ideas you have about some starting questions about the project as a whole.

Thanks for the kind barnstar! I was definitely in need of some cheering up at the time :-). -- SB_Johnny | talk  10:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Bell again
Too tempting but he's a troll... look at his MO. Bzuk (talk) 22:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC).

Editing survey
Hi LedRush. My name is Mike Lyons and I am a doctoral student at Indiana University. I am conducting research on the writing and editing of high traffic “current events” articles on Wikipedia. I have noticed in the talk page archives at Barack Obama that you have contributed to the editing or maintenance of the article. I was hoping you would agree to fill out a brief survey about your experience. This study aims to help expand our thinking about collaborative knowledge production. Believe me I share your likely disdain for surveys but your participation would be immensely helpful in making the study a success. A link to the survey is included below.

Link to the survey: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=P6r2MmP9rbFMuDigYielAQ_3d_3d

Thanks and best regards, Mike Lyons lyonspen | (talk) 21:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Long time, no hear...
You got a press mention by name! :) Fcreid (talk) 10:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I just discovered this article and wanted to leave you a note about it, but I see you've already seen it. Pretty impressive!  Coemgenus 19:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)