User talk:TracyMcClark/Archive 1

warning
Thanks for reminding me to sign my edit warring warning. The warning was not out of line because yours was about non-constructive edits, and mine is about edit warring. I know he only made 2 edits, but you don't need 3 to have an edit war, and because he's new I thought it would be better to warn him early.LedRush (talk) 01:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * If you want to bring a canon to a pistol fight, that's fine with me. :)--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

neutral version?
Please explain on the Talk page why your preferred version of the Project Vote page is the "neutral" version. What is neutral is, of course, precisely the question at issue, hence it does not advance the dispute towards any resolution to just claim that one perspective is the "neutral" one without any argument or evidence.Bdell555 (talk) 16:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Your bold change is disputed and therefore I reverted to the "original" consensus version which seems to me neutral enough to call it so. Furthermore, may I suggest WP:BRD as part of the solution to avoid an edit war?--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 17:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, the version you reverted to is obviously disputed as well (by me), "therefore" I changed it! But that's not very convincing, is it?  What I dispute is your contention that there was any consensus for the previous version; as I've noted, there was no discussion on the Talk page supporting the "Since 1994" language that I removed.  If you read the entirety of the Talk page, you'd also see that there is a great deal of evidence for the contention that there are sources alleging a affiliate/arm/offshoot relationship.  Whatever the case, I'm just suggesting that a valid reason be attached to your edit summaries, or better yet, precede it with a Talk page contribution.  Claiming to revert to the "neutral" version is ultimately no reason, because one can take the opposite view and claim the exact same reason!Bdell555 (talk) 17:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, then just go ahead and start an edit war. I don't care and won't hold you back. End of discussion?--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 17:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm interested in AVOIDING an edit war. To do that, everyone involved needs to talk/explain/reason as opposed to just reverting each other.  If you don't want to participate in the latter, you certainly don't have to, I am just suggesting that the latter (talk/explain) should be engaged in by anyone, such as yourself, who takes it upon him or herself to revert someone else (i.e. "edit war").Bdell555 (talk) 17:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Your userpage
I noticed you had a blue username, and I clicked on it. I like it!  Digital Ninja  23:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I finally found something suitable, thanks to you and our "chicken vs. egg" exchange. Thanks for your input. I do appreciate it. :)--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

RFC on McCain campaign
There's a discussion going on in regard to the jihadist comments that some editors want included in the John McCain 2008 presidential campaign article here: Talk:John_McCain_presidential_campaign,_2008. The discussion is starting to go in circles, and it's quite frankly tiring me. A fresh opinion would be appreciated if you have the time. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 17:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

John McCain presidential campaign, 2008
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Requests for mediation/John McCain presidential campaign, 2008, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Regards. FangedFaerie ( Talk  |  Edits ) 06:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Help Needed re Joe the Plumber warning
Hi The Magnificent Clean-keeper - Is this the appropriate place ask about the "edit war" warning I received for edits I made to the "Joe the Plumber" entry? Please let me know, thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.35.118.176 (talk) 00:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Not really. I just wanted to give you a heads-up to prevent you from getting in "trouble". You might want to look up the link provided in that "warning" I gave you about (WP:3RR). Warning sounds somehow negative but it's like I said just a heads up (and standard template).


 * A note on the side: Remember to add new sections always at the bottom of any talk page. The easiest way to do so is to click "new section" at the top of the screen (or edit screen) of the page you want to place a new edit. I moved your posting to the bottom but you'll still be able to find it easily.
 * Also remember to sign your posts. There is also a button for it at the same place you'll find the "new section" one (at the edit screen). Happy editing, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

edit summary cut short
My edit summary was "Please try pushing this in Talk" which should sound a lot less angry, I hope! I have been having weird problems editing in WP today, and some pages take forever to load. Think they have server problems? In any case, I apologize if my comment sounded mean-spirited in the least! Collect (talk) 15:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * No offense taken. And no, for me WP is running smooth :) . so I guess it just depends on the page you're trying to load.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 16:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * PS: A good edit summary can prevent reintroducing of the same.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 16:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Powell a conservative?
Huh? Who has ever called Powell a conservative? And you reinstated this, claiming that it's OR to say he's not?! Haven't you got that backwards? -- Zsero (talk) 02:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Why don't you try stop alienating editors who are basically on your side [2nd after on WP's side of course], at least mostly? Yes, that's what you're doing even if you're not aware of it.
 * Powell a "liberal Republican"? Is that what you're saying? If so, I'm respectfully not responding further to your "out-of-line" comment besides the following since you took out "Republican" in your last edit.
 * So Powell is not a Republican anymore? Guess someone tried that before (probably because s/he was "pissed" about his endorsement for Obama) and made him a Democrat. Going by that standard Joe Lieberman would be a Republican, or would he? No, he's not and Powell is still a longtime Republican, like it or not.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't take out Republican; I moved it up to the beginning of the sentence. The sentence includes both conservatives and Republicans; Powell is the latter but nobody has ever suggested that he's the former, and it's OR to claim that he is.  -- Zsero (talk) 03:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I just made a minor change. See below my response to SchutteGod (or his IP?).


 * "Powell is the latter but nobody has ever suggested that he's the former, and it's OR to claim that he is."


 * Actually someone did. I could find it but believe me someone did. It made me laugh :) --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 05:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Remark on the side: I like working with you. Seems to me we're getting there, little by little, step by step.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 05:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Colin Powell the 'conservative'
Colin_Powell SchutteGod (talk) 02:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Never cite WP for WP-articles (and arguments). If there is a citation which confirms your statement you could and should cite it (as you could also cite it to the Palin paragraph in question). After Zsero's edit Frum is still there and I guess it's up to him to cite it, even so I doubt he'll do anything in this regard. He seems to have made up his mind without even thinking that he might be wrong. At least his edit is just a sign of seeing WP as a "battleground" for his own POW. Sadly he sees editors who don't agree with him 100% as "enemies". Wrong approach, big time.
 * Back to the initial 'dispute" between us: Can you give me a non-WP citation for Powell or/and could we otherwise just say "conservatives and Republicans" (or switch it around if you'd like). The way it stands now (if it hasn't changed while I'm writing) would require to "label" all persons that are mentioned and hat would be all but a BLP "homerun".--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, Zsero's edit is fine with me. --SchutteGod 70.181.171.159 (talk) 04:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I just made a minor change. Please take a look at it and tell me what you think. I'm still and always open for improvements.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 05:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was my IP. Sorry about that. It looks fine. SchutteGod (talk) 17:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem. IP or user name, I thought it was you; who else other than you could have been? Anyway, fine that you're approving the result (even so it did get a little makeover from another editor later). Thanks for your feedback, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Moving your comment
The only reason I moved your comment at the ACORN Talk page was to keep all "votes" together, in one place. It is a protected article and (probably) an admin who has never seen the Talk page before will respond to the template. I'm only trying to help that unfamiliar admin to see clearly, whether there is consensus or not. Please do not take offense at these good faith efforts. 300wackerdrive (talk) 14:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure, and now you're blocked indef. for such and other...! Fare well.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Lame-duck needs a citation?
A lame-duck session is, by definition, one that takes place after an election and before the new Congress is sworn in, and includes members who have lost re-election or chose not to run. The link to the term "lame duck" should have been explaination enough. Just found it puzzling why it should need to be cited, esp. since it has been called just that in the media (ex:If the Senate Reconvenes, Two Seats May Be Empty, NY Times).Fredmdbud (talk) 06:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

With regard the OR tag

 * 1) Shouldn't it have gone on before the article's speculative claims were removed?
 * 2) Even so, while I don't agree that coverage given to opinion when it's labeled as such would not comprise original research, I do allow that it's best to leave speculation qua speculation out that's hasn't become sufficiently notable in its own right.
 * 3) In any case, at this point, its handful of listed names remaining are all confirmed by G.B. Rob'ts. (Here.)  〜Justmeherenow     15:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually true. I didn't check further and just assumed the remaining entries are from same (or even lesser?) quality. I'll take the template back out.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 15:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Uhm, you just did already so. Good.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 15:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 *  〜Justmeherenow     16:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Stephen Colbert
Hi The Magnificent Clean-keeper, you reverted my edit with the edit summary "Huh, no", which was not needed. Please use the talk page and see WP:ALSO. Thanks, --Tom 13:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * "Bad faith editor" and that on Thanksgiving day? You might want to distance yourself from such "bad faith" statements. See you after the long Holyday-weekend if not sooner.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Tom: I appreciate much of your edits but naturally not all of them. Since different issues piled up I'll respond to all of them here (and placing a links to this section on you talk).


 * Stephen Colbert:
 * By now you've already explained your edit on the article talk page and your own and corrected your recent edit that I was not conform with. So no need to get into that further because now you made your point clear and left the 2nd (see also) entrance standing to either be left there or worked into the main body. I agree 100% with you now and besides I must admit that I didn't see the link to the Stephen Colbert (character)"bio" at the top at the page. Guess it was to obvious.


 * "Bad faith editor":
 * The 2nd edit of mine (at your talk page)  was unnecessary, out of line and I shouldn't have made it and therefore apologize for doing so. But I still wonder why you took out the 1st one . If you have such impression about me in the first place you should've addressed it to me personally. I don't think it is polite in any way to hack on an editor like this after one edit that we disagreed on at the time. I really would've like top get a response from you about it and still do.


 * "About talk pages":
 * I was mostly referring to this edit of yours (which was reversed by another editor). I agree with you about all those "forum-edits" and such but blanking an edit of an established editor doesn't fall (usually) under those strict criteria's and as you said by yourself, "...one man's attack can be another man's praise or something like that" and I think it those cases it's not for us to decide. The simple and easy way to approach this without scrutiny is to inform the editor (either on the "affected" talk page or his/her talk). I certainly wouldn't like it if some would just erase a talk page edit of mine unless it is a clear controversial and senseless "output" from my side (that I kinda expect anyway to be erased quickly even so that didn't happen on article's pages yet).
 * By the way: This edit I see as appropriate. It happens rarely that the editor wants to keep it and can do so with ease. I recently undid a vandal on your main page. Don't know if you noticed.

Did I leave anything out? In that case tell me and I'll address it after being back from going back to my Holyday-break (even so I'll look into WP off and on).

As for you now, "trick or treat"? Let me know. Thanks, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

PS: Don't know if I can give you this " I am also wishing for World peace for my Xmas gift :)." as a treat but I'll try ;) .--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Another PS: I do read policies and guideline ;)--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey The Magnificent Clean-keeper, in this age of instant gratification and quick responses, you sure go into great detail :). Anyways, everything looks pretty good with your responses. I have a pretty short memory around here when dealing with editors which is good I think since I try not to hold grudges and just push forward. I am actually pretty busy with real life right now so this is a quick note. Cheers, --Tom 14:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Fox News Poll
Should this be added to the FNC article?

The tone of Fox News Channel's nightly "Special Report" is both more balanced and more negative than the broadcast network shows. On FOX, McCain and Palin combined have received 39% favorable and 61% unfavorable comments, compared to 28% favorable and 72% unfavorable comments about Obama and Biden.166.217.198.228 (talk) 13:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but that's gotta wait.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Closing discussions
Your discussion closure posture seems to be heavy-handed. Closing a discussion where that type of resolution is not customary sometimes turns out to be incendiary rather than productive. Moreover, closure at article talk pages is usually done by an administrator, and even then only in cases of irrelevance or disruption. There is no way that a discussion which began today --- and which continued to attract numerous comments from numerous editors --- could be “stale” as you characterized it in your edit summary. There is also nothing “irrelevant” about briefly mentioning and quoting another Wikipedia article to illustrate proper implementation of Wikipedia editing policy. Some editors only had a chance to make one single comment before your closure. For example, Wasted Time R made one comment, and I asked him to clarify whether material from the article could be moved to another sub-article. But you closed the discussion before he could respond. Please try to be a bit less over-zealous about closing discussions. Thank you.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, FL, but by now this issue is kinda outdated and I don't see a need for a response to it. I do think I did the right thing closing that discussion and if similar happens again I'll comment on it when approached. If you have any other question(s) still up-to-date I'll try to answer in a reasonable time.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It is kind of outdated now, but thanks for the response anyway. I hope my comment above didn't come across as harsh, but I'm a big believer in free speech, and didn't feel that the time had come to shut it down.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

RFC on JtP
You may be interested in this Talk:Joe_the_PlumberMattnad (talk) 20:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Saw your reply today to Amwestover -- you are right, but as I learned, these guys never let the facts get in the way of their arguments.Mattnad (talk) 00:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks and yes I am indeed right about what I wrote. I used to be a contractor not that long ago (so what I know is not outdated) otherwise I would think about getting back into the same (what I'm seriously doing). I'm sure Amwestover commented in good faith but he just doesn't have the expertise in that case and should keep some doubt about his finding and listening to others to expand his view. It's always good to learn something new and WP certainly has some part in my expand of mind.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Still trying to get clarity on a point - care to contribute here? Mattnad (talk) 21:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

ANI
I responded to your question at ANI, but I think we both might still be confused.Die4Dixie (talk) 01:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I replied there too by now. I'm still "confused" but hope you're not anymore.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 04:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * we are cool . I have no attachment, emotional or otherwise , to the editor. The pieces he wants to use are no good. It is unfortunate that we both had issues at the same time so that it became difficult to seperate us. I wanted him to itemize his complaints so everyone could look at it. Hysterically screeching that it is biased without any solid support is not kosher for me either. If he doesn't change his style, then I promise I will let him hang himself out to dry. If he is a member of a think tank that poses a COI, then he should disclose it. Were I a director, I would be concerned that he might discredit the organization with his behaviour. I'd like to see him contribute constructively, but it's up to him. As you know,  I'm very open about my leanings, but leanings be damned if he can't get with it. If not, maybe Conservapedia would make him happier.I hope this clears up my ' connection".Die4Dixie (talk) 05:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comment D4D and yes, I guess we are cool. I also saw your latest edits regarding this issue and they reinforced my good faith in you.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Talk:George W. Bush
Oh, it's okay, Magnificent. Thanks for the note, though! My best, Happyme22 (talk) 02:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Request for help; Lack of consensus and compromise with CSloat
Hello Magnificent Clean-keeper,

I'm messaging you in regard to csloat and the John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 article. Things have gotten to the point that I'm on the brink of a 3RR since another editor has join in his revert war and I need help because this has gone too far. This has taught me two things: a.) csloat will not compromise and will not work towards consensus, and b.) I should've gotten outside help sooner.

I've asked some people who are third parties to help me out if they can with some pretty lengthy posts to their talk pages, here's one example; they've given me advice before and I wanted to make the situation as clear to them as possible. You're obviously not a third party to this, but you were part of initial talk on compromise and consensus.

I think CSloat is a disruptive editor, and that's the case that I made to the third parties that I contacted. I don't expect you to review what I wrote to them, but if you have the time I'd appreciate if you could review the case I've made in regard to me exhibiting compromise and him, well, not exhibiting compromise (or any chance as appeasing him) since you were involved initially.

Here's my original version and my most recent version, and the list of the compromises I've made:
 * 1) Added information about a statistically insignificant margin for Laos in the 2nd paragraph; a slight modification of one of his edits.
 * 2) Changed the lede sentence for the 3rd paragraph since it was not sourced with a more neutrally worded lede sentence; per his request.
 * 3) Removed any reference to "apathy" and replaced with "no opinion" in the 3rd paragraph; per his request.
 * 4) Provided separate sources from the main source for China, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Latin America because these poll results weren't specifically mentioned in the main source's summary; per his request (based on his wildly incorrect interpretation of WP:OR).

Here's CSloat's first edit/content removal and his most recent edit/content removal, and here's all that's changed:
 * 1) After having it pointed out that his pasted quote was redundant with the first paragraph, he simply removed the first paragraph.
 * 2) After pointing out the hypocrisy of him calling poll data about China, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Latin America "cherry picked" but condoning inclusion of data about the European Union, Africa, Canada, Australia, Japan, and South Korea which came from the same source, he simply removed everything and replaced the entire paragraph with his original pasted quote.
 * 3) Per a token compromise that I never asked for and don't support, he pasted a sentence about China after the quote.

Your input on my interpretation of my compromises would be greatly appreciated. But there's another issue that I'd greatly appreciate your help with.

CSloat started an RFC two days ago where he listed his most recent problem, that since the source I was using was titled "World Citizens Prefer Obama to McCain by More Than 3-to-1" that citing information from the source that didn't specifically support the title violated WP:OR, which is just plain ridiculous. Hoping to finally put a close to this, I went and made the compromise and cited all of the material that he had an issue with using articles that had titles which support the material I was using (it's all the same Gallup poll data, just different summaries about significant responses). Well, 16 hours after making that edit, and after I publicly said in the RFC that I've addressed his last concern, he resorting to counting !votes (there were only two other opinions) and started revert warring again saying that he simply didn't like the edit. Someone else join in so now if I overturn his reverts I'd be in violation of 3RR. Could you please roll the section back to my last version and comment on the RFC?

Thank you, and I appreciate your time. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 04:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry but I didn't had time to examine the whole thing and give a clear comment about it yet, but my thought is to condense this section, having the lead as in your edit although it could be CS's part or a "split" on that since both are basically similar. or the rest I would suggest to right it in a NPOV that neither (ex)candidate becomes favorite treatment. Just summarize the rest of it. Readers can ]read the sources if they are further interested.
 * I certainly can't roll back to your preferred version since I'm not really in favor of either and therefore would call for improper canvassing.
 * I'm watching this page but unless I have some time on hand I'll stay out it as much as I can for obvious reasons [hate unconstructive edit-warring no matter from which "side"].
 * Hope you'll understand and thanks for your trust, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * PS: Feel free to copy and paste my comment wherever it fits if you want to. Just keep it in context. Thanks.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Suffice to say that the above is a complete misrepresentation of my position by Amwestover -- it is such a distortion that it borders on sheer sophistry. Other editors have seen this pretty clearly, as the discussion has shown that the only other editors who have shown an interest preferred the version that I've suggested rather than Amwestover's.  I've tried several times to suggest that Amwestover read such gems as WP:AGF and stick to arguing the issues rather than hurling accusations of "disruptive editing."  I've been more than reasonable in the discussion, and the version that is currently in place has the virtue of being supported by consensus.  That said, I'm happy to look at any new version suggested by the Magnificent Clean-Keeper or anyone else.  But I implore Amwestover, please stop running around Wikipedia attacking me as some kind of disruptive editor or vandal when you know very well that neither of those things is true.  If you don't want to discuss the issues in talk, please don't engage me at all.  I have been very restrained about reporting your behavior -- you blatantly violated 3RR a few times now, and you have laced nearly every comment to me with sometimes vicious personal attacks, and you even filed a phony AN/I report on me and used part of your userspace to host an attack page setting up for another phony AN/I, and yet I have held back from reporting this behavior in the hopes that you would eventually realize the virtue of civil discussion.  I ask you once more, please stop turning everything into an attack on my character.  Thanks. csloat (talk) 18:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Talk:George W. Bush
Shoe Throwing incident- Sorry if I came Across Rude I was just asking. Best---It&#39;s Me :) O Yea its me.. Washington95 (talk) 14:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No worries. I didn't see your comment as rude at all but maybe my response could be seen as a little harsh even so it was not my intention ;) --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 14:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

And to you!
I saw your holiday wishes on Ferrylodge's talk page - Merry Christmas to you, and thank you! Kelly hi! 20:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Merry X-mas to you too :)    --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Obama citizenship conspiracy theories
Please check the discussion page before deleting whole statements. When you said to "take it to talk", it already had been recently discussed. Part of the confusion you may be experiencing is the two users Markdandrea and Mdandrea. We are not one and the same. Furthermore, I have never submitted any biased articles but it appears that you may have some political leanings, thus it would behoove you to do the gentlemanly thing and dismiss yourself from this argument over any possible conspiracy here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markdandrea (talk • contribs) 02:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll respond further when I have some spare time and nothing better to do than commenting on silly troll accusations. Meanwhile:

"''04:20, December 21, 2008 Protonk (Talk | contribs) blocked Markdandrea (Talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 2 months ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts: Edit warring on Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, an article under probation as well as using a WP:SOCK account (User:Mdandrea) to edit war.)

04:19, December 21, 2008 Protonk (Talk | contribs) blocked Mdandrea (Talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts: Account used for edit warring on Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, an article under community probation and 1RR rule.)''"

--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Revert at John McCain presidential campaign, 2008
Hello Clean-keeper, could you please roll back your revert? I do not support this version since it gives undue weight. This version gives what is basically an unscientific guestimate from a barely notable organization as much weight as a worldwide scientific poll from Gallup. I believe the only way to put this discussion to rest is to have as minimal a section as possible since CSloat objections have always revolved around details. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 16:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * A minimal section that includes the al-Qaeda information is fine with me, as you know. Please do not blame me for your intransigence.  Thanks! csloat (talk) 17:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you have to reply to every single post I put on other user's talk pages? Seriously, get a life. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 01:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of reference to Andy Martin from Obama article
Dear Magnificent.., I have placed the info regarding the conspiracy theorists on Obama's main page due to the fact that these people seem to have such traction and are so well known. I have run across such theorists in my church, and throughout the community that I live in. To choose to completely ignore their existence on the main page of Obama's main article would only seem to me to only empower them. To make a short but clear reference to their inherent inaccuracy there seems to me to be helpful, informative, and noteworthy, especially to those seeking the truth regarding such things.

Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 18:12, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Apologies for not having responded earlier but by the time I could have you already had more specific reasons for the reverse of your edit. Thanks for your very polite written inquire, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Editorials
I am not sure I understand your last comment at ANI. I think the question is germane to the conversation. It appeared that some admins think the crossed Israeli flag is "racist" and thus cannot be used in userspaces. I think that if it comes with anisemetic comments, then it would be the comments that were problematic, but not the image. I guess what I was asking for was clarification about the flag issue. If that was not the right place to ask, please direct me to the proper venue. How was this editorializing?Die4Dixie (talk) 01:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I was referring to a post of yours further up which led to your last one. But please, don't start a ANI-based discussion here on my talk page and no matter where you stand, try being open-minded for other peoples opinion. Thanks.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * PS: The "right" place to ask (since you're asking about my opinion) would be talk pages of articles or users.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response. I had assumed we had a basis for a working relationship/friendly discussion based on our dialogue above here on your talkpage. Sorry if I have given you the impression that I wanted to start an ANI thread on your page. I shan't trouble you again.I wish you a Happy New Year, full of prosperity for you and yours.Die4Dixie (talk) 02:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No trouble at all. Wish you the best for this (most likely) very interesting new year and may it be as prosper for you as I wish it to be for myself *smile*.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Ayers
I'm noit sure what the communication problem stems from. The quote is from the article on Wikipedia, The problem is we have praise in the criticism section. The last part of the last post doesn't belong in the criticism section is my point. It is praise, not criticism. I wonder if you have read the article or the section to which I refering, as our conversation has a surreal, twilight zone feel to it.Die4Dixie (talk) 04:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * At that time of the day [my day] it's always surreal and I might be gone at any time (but I'll be back of course). I just converted your links at the talk page. If you put a link on the talk page just leave out the and it'll work. Talk to you later tonight or if not I guess tomorrow and hopefully I had the time to check out your link(s) and give you my input which would be my opinion about your initial question. So till then, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 05:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

ACORN
Re ACORN I left you a message on my user talk page. Syntacticus (talk) 02:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * (FMI: Comments/discussion here )

Bad faith uses of Wikipedia
Please read EI exclusive: a pro-Israel group's plan to rewrite history on Wikipedia. Ignore the particular topic, but note the methods suggested to be used. That's what I'm seeing in several political articles. More recently, there's Gaza: secondary war being fought on the internet which isn't necessarily bad faith, just using cyberspace. Flatterworld (talk) 01:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Flagged Revs
Hi,

I noticed you voted oppose in the flag revs straw pole and would like to ask if you would mind adding User:Promethean/No to your user or talk page to make your position clear to people who visit your page :) - Thanks to Neurolysis for the template  « l | Ψrometheăn ™ | l »   (talk) 07:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Darth Arafat
Do you find it offensive?--Cerejota (talk) 00:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No, not at all but I'm not "everybody else".--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

What is going on here?
Why are you saying that I edited a comment after there were already 15 responses to it? That is false. Here is a diff showing my comment and every subsequent edit I made to it. There were no intervening responses.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Gosh, I responded to your add-on-edit in the first place and didn't expect anything else but a response to my comment on the issue or none. For sure I didn't expect you to be offended by my comment but this is your problem, not mine. Apologies for sounding disrespectful; It is not my intention but I think it's time to put this unfortunate conversation that seems to go nowhere to rest.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Look, this is not rocket science. Whether you agree or not, one of the worst and most disruptive things that a Wikipedia editor can possibly do is to edit a comment after others have already responded to it.  And that is exactly what you have repeatedly accused me of doing, whether you meant to or not.


 * You said, "Since you just changed your comment [and you shouldn't do this after several editors responded already] I have to squeeze my response in here."


 * You also said, "I count 15 responses after your initial comment before your latest edit to it."


 * The simple fact is that I did not change my comment after anyone responded to it.As I said above, here is a diff showing my comment and every subsequent edit I made to it, without any intervening edits.


 * If you did not mean to accuse me of editing a comment after others had already responded to it, then I have difficulty understanding what you did mean. Did you mean that I should not make comments in a talk page section except at the very bottom of the talk page section?  That makes absolutely no sense to me.


 * Being offended by your comments is not "my problem". It's also "your problem".  You don't seem to be able to acknowledge how rotten it would be to edit a talk-page comment after someone has already responded to it, and you also don't seem to be able to acknowledge that I did no such thing.


 * "Altering a comment after it has been replied to robs the reply of its original context." Ferrylodge (talk) 02:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I did not alter your edit and I made it very clear in my edit that I'm squeezing mine in in between yours to respond to your alteration which I wanted to comment on. I never did this before but like I said, I made it very very clear that I'm "squeezing in", didn't I? Furthermore, (again), I think this conversation leads to nothing but further misunderstanding and therefore I'm "closing" this thread if you don't mind. No hard feelings whatsoever, regards, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * PS: No need to "lecture me" with your links and words. The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I never said that you altered my edit. And you would be well-advised to actually consider my links and words, rather than rudely dismissing them as "lecturing."Ferrylodge (talk) 03:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * ""Altering a comment after it has been replied to robs the reply of its original context." [3]Ferrylodge (talk) 02:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)"
 * ????????--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If you'd like me to leave your talk page, then I'd be glad to. But, I gather that you're asking me a question, so I'll answer it.


 * There is a Wikipedia policy that says, "Altering a comment after it has been replied to robs the reply of its original context." This is a critical Wikipedia policy, because it would be dishonest and disruptive for an editor to alter his own comment after there have already been responses to it.  And, you have repeatedly accused me of doing exactly that.  You intentionally or unintentionally accused me of violating that Wikipedia policy here, and again here (I gave you the full quotes above).  The article in question is subject to probation, and therefore if your accusation were correct, then I could be blocked or banned from Wikipedia.  That's why I got upset about it.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Now you're overdoing it (a looot). You wouldn't be banned or else for this. Why are you making an issue out of this???? I told you, I just wanted to respond to your addition of your comment. That's all!!!! Really, that's all. And I don't "ban" editors of my talk page (and certainly not you); but I choose to respond or not. FL, can we put this non-issue to rest? It's not worth the time, yours and mine.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Quote:"You wouldn't be banned or else for this."
 * To clarify: Because you didn't disobey the rules in any serious matter, ok?--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Clean-Keeper, thank you for your obviously sincere effort to discuss this matter further and put it to rest. Like you, I am not a fan of making a big deal out of small matters. But I want to clearly explain to you that I have been blocked and banned at Wikipedia before for much, much smaller stuff than this. While you may not view anything I did as particularly inappropriate, others can cite your words (and diffs) as evidence of my being disruptive. I'm just asking you to please be careful, that's all. As you know, your criticism about me came on the heels of an accusation by LotLE that I had made an article edit that “was extremely inappropriate (and sanctionable) behavior” (his words at the talk page). Not everyone at Wikipedia is nice, unfortunately. At Wikipedia, a "comment" ends with a signature. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Even so I don't agree with Lotle a lot I agreed in removal of the template but this is a small issue for me [I saw it but I didn't reverse it]. Besides that, let me assure you that if my recent (non) accusation would lead to a potential block of yours I would stand behind you to clear it up. I'm a nice and (I think) fair person. Cheer up and just in case you get in "trouble" because of this (what I don't believe) let me know and I throw my 2$ in for you. Hope we are in good terms now (with a healthy disagreement), best regards, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 04:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * PS: I get your point ;) --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 04:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Possibly there is a misunderstanding over how comments are responded to. For example:
 * Comment 1
 * Response to comment 1
 * Response to response of comment 1
 * Another response to comment 1 (but not a response to the above response)
 * Some may view responses to a comment as "anything below" a comment. Technically this is false, but in pratice here, it's falseness is of little value. What is more useful is to view the time stamp of an alteration in relation to the time stamps of surrounding responses. If the alteration is not immediate and is made after (by comparing timestamps) ANY subsequent posts (regardless of their position), I think it wise practice to strike rather than simply alter. Maybe that helps. If not, then nevermind and I'll crawl back under my rock. JBarta (talk) 21:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no help needed so you can "crawl back" under your rock. Thanks anyway.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

My Bad
Hey, my bad about jumping the gun with those president-elect Obama edits. You were right to reverse them as he wasn't president yet. I had the time all messed up. I'm located in Micronesia, you see, and I didn't calculate the time differences correctly. But I thought I had waited till the proper hour to make the changes. Anyhow my bad. Douglemeister (talk) 22:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I thought so and didn't consider your edits "bad faith" at all. It was an exiting day for many and you're not the only one that jumped ahead without doing the time-zone-math. I'm on EST so I could skip the math; "smile". Regards,--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the kind words about me at Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. Praise is rare in this endeavor and it's always appreciated! Wasted Time R (talk) 04:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You're welcome and you deserve it. You're one of the best here (and I'm not overstating).--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 04:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

BDS: CDS
Please, someone, work with me — help me understand with English text why CDS doesn't belong (yet PDS does?), or show me where this was previously discussed in the Talk page. All I see are two comments on why there isn't a CDS article, but I see no discussion of why there shouldn't be an entry in Variants. It is a documented variant, so what's the problem? Thanks. —EqualRights (talk) 02:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Already explained by CWC by now.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 14:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It is at commons
Please CSD.--Cerejota (talk) 05:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You're correct and reversed myself. For some reason the file didn't pop up for me yesterday.Thanks for the note, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 13:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

My crap
Hi, I was just making a suggestion. I'm sorry if it upset you, but your reply was totally out of proportion. Perhaps you would care to refactor your comment at Talk:Barack Obama? siℓℓy rabbit (  talk  ) 04:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry. I'm kinda in a bad mood right now for other reasons but I added this [Sorry, but it's really not helping here.] over there.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 04:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Alright, don't sweat it. I'm sorry to hear that your bummed out.  Best wishes,  siℓℓy rabbit  (  talk  ) 04:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow! Thanks for such a rare caring comment. Best regards, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 05:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Sergey Brin
Hi TMCK, I see that you reverted the Brin article to the "long" lead version. Could you please comment on the talk page and maybe help craft a "reasonable" intro? Anyways, --Tom 00:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Tom. Thanks for contacting me here.I don't think I can help crafting a good intro because of time issues and no strong feelings about it but I'll keep watching the article including the talk page and kick in if I think I can be of any help there. As you might've seen in my edit history, I'm mostly "policing" [I dislike this word; Sounds like "big brother is watching you...] pages of interest and very rarely edited those for quite a while (besides reversing or slight corrections). Let's say I leave it mostly to others and occasionally put my 2 cents in. So said, I'll keep my eye on this.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. The article as it stands, includes way to much minutia(in the lead), imho, compared to most bios. I am not immune to crafting a "better" more consise lead, but we will see if the other editor who disagrees will compromise. No biggie as always, cheers, --Tom 13:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008
Hello.

Regarding your recent edit to Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 - Why do you think the way the bailout money is being spent is not relevant to the article on the bailout? Every source that I cited talked about the bailout, so how can you say it's not relevant to the bailout?

Grundle2600 (talk) 15:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello Grundle,
 * Please keep question related to the article on it's talk page where other editors can read and respond to it. Thus, I'm not answering your question here as you where given already some answers amd reasons on the talk page mentioned but I would like to ask you for your own good to get familiar with wp:3rr since you already could be blocked for violating this policy. Also I recomend wp:BRD. Those disputed edits of yours should be resolved by gaining consensus and if you feel the need for try a wp:rfc. Just edit warring is not an option even if you feel you're right.
 * Hope this helps you understanding the rules and prevents you from getting into such kind of "trouble" now and in the future.
 * Regards, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 16:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I have already asked the question multiple times on the article's talk page, but no one has answered it. Why haven't you answered the question on the article's talk page? Grundle2600 (talk) 16:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Because as I pointed out above it was already answered. Maybe not directly but if you read it again you might realize this. Also you by yourself didn't clearly respond to the answers you where given, even here. Please stop being so insistent and try what I recommended to you in the first place. Thanks.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 16:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No one has explained how an article about the bailout is not about the bailout. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * An article might be about the bailout but not necessarily suitable for an encyclopedia, just to give you a general answer to it.
 * But as I see now, trying to help you only leads to more unwarranted accusations from your side and thus I ban you from my talk page [yes, I can do that], asking you not to post here any further unless it is directly related to me and also made yourself familiar with the rules/links I pointed out to you. From now on I will just remove any comment that don't fit into this description. Thanks, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 17:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry
Sorry for inadvertantly blanking your remark. Kja er (talk) 21:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Message from D4D
Sorry. I´ll be back tomorrow when I feel less contrary.Die4Dixie (talk) 05:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No worries. I had fun tonight :) --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 05:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Election articles
Thank you. The discussion to which you alerted me is very interesting. Penthamontar (talk) 22:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. Even so we seem not to agree on the other issue I thougt I should point out this somehow related discussion to you. --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

-Help Requested- Once again there is a user putting parts of the info box in bold (Popular votes/%/states carried). As of last time I checked this was not the agreed format (granted changes are being discussed), if this has changed please lent me know. I wanted to give you a heads up since you've had some dealings with the user Airview95 (talk) and have helped with this very problem in the past (several users almost all unregistered). Hope we can work together in monitoring the situation. I also wanted to lent you know that I appreciate your vigilance in tracking down and reverting vandalism throughout Wikipedia. Thanks Highground79 (talk) 04:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Since you commented before or are otherwise involved, please take a look at Template talk:Infobox Election, . (will post this also on your talk page and thanks for letting me know that this silly issue is still "out there")--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 04:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Obama lead section
User:Brothejr deleted it at 16:02, 7 February 2009 with this edit:. I did find a brief discussion about it in the archives here:. You actually replied once in it. I disagree with his arguments in that discussion because the lead should summarize main parts of the article and a large portion, a couple sections, is about his political positions and what he did as a senator. It might cause debate what positions or actions to include but some need to be summarized in the lead somehow considering the lead should be a nice summary of 3-4 paragraphs. LonelyMarble (talk) 03:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your message and effort. I just read it and replied at talk Obama.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

vandalism
um...i wasn't trying to vandalise. Just tell people that she's not what she says she is...and defend my faith? I don't try to vandalise...and just because you don't agree with it, please don't DELETE it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.226.79.168 (talk) 05:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure, you had the best intentions, swimmerfreak94. Try to read your IP talk page.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * PS: What to do with "sh*t"? Well, you sure don't keep it. Point taken? --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

construction worked lied, his air died.
Call Hannity to verify whether he said or not. That was his bread and butter and slogan. You cannot delete the discussions. Let the consensus decide.

Glunnbuck (talk) 23:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You're missing the point. It doesn't matter if it's true or not, you have to back it up with a WP:RS or WP can get in legal trouble [Happened not so long ago at the German WP. There was a lawsuit filed (against WP) and fortunately dropped after an edit with a non-reliable source was reversed for good]. I'm not saying you can't edit what you did but I'm telling you (again) that you have to backup such edits or they will and have to be just reversed. My advise: Don't present anything like you did as a fact at the article and neither at the talk page. You can present it as your personal opinion but even then you might be reverted if you don't provide a RS. Please read WP:BLP as it is besides other guidelines and policies the most important one for every biography on WP.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I forget
I forget that there is a general lack of apprectiation of sarcasm on wikipedia. Maybe you forgot that the Hillary Clinton campaign made the dealer insinuation just before the NH primary. In any case, it might be better that it's gone. No sense in drawing more unbalanced people into the discussion. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I took it as sarcassm [that's why I didn't remove it on sight]but some wouldn't as you said.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

ANI, Need help with article patrollers
Well said, here, and I'm sorry if my subsequent note to the section seems to ignore it. For some reason, though I paused to fix lunch in the middle of my note, it didn't give me an edit conflict. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the catch
Embarrassing, editing the main page instead of the talk. Thanks for catching it! CouldOughta (talk) 01:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Ammo
The bigger shops (Bass Pro Shops, Wal-mart etc) have a lot of empty space for handgun ammo. The smaller ones aren't as bad. Some of the places I order from are sold out. But the gun show I was at 2 weeks ago had plenty of everything. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Howdy!
Hello, how are you, sir? - THE MATTY!   TALK!  11:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk back
Newguy34 (talk) 03:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Earth Hour
Yeh, I forgot about that, thanks for the correction. On another note, going on the computer whilst the lights are out is really bad for my eyes. Anyway, thanks SpitfireTally-ho! 22:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I forgot for two days to adjust my clocks for daylight savings time. Imagine the consequences.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:07, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Fritzl
Thanks for letting me know. Also, check out the recent discussion at Jimbo's talk page (permanent link) Johnny from Bronx (talk) 22:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your notice. I'm following the whole thing even so I'm not commenting on every (senseless?) comment made there and other places.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

What does your name mean?
What does The Magnificent Clean-keeper mean? It sounds like a cleaning product (no offense ;) ). SMP0328. (talk) 01:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe I am just a cleaning product sweeping around WP. But who knows for sure? :) --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You can see me as one who attempts to impersonate "Mr. Proper" "lol".--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

OK
I did what you requested on my talk page. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'll send you my (short) e-mail in a moment.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)