User talk:TracyMcClark/Archive 3

Help needed - Edit war 2 - Aggressive and Incompetent Edits by User Verbal
I am requesting help with an over-aggressive and inconsiderate editor by the name of VERBAL. This person keeps reverting a page to add an external link while losing dozens of valid updates to the original page. He/She ignores when proper updates are made and reverts them even using Twinkle and spurious excuses for the revisions. I am ill-equipped to fight this user. You will see what I mean if you check the revision history for the following page.

List of channelled texts

Thanks in advance for any help you can provide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.53.72 (talk) 16:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit war
I am well within the 3rr rule. There is no war. Thay have finally gone to the talkpage, which Brothe whatever reverted.--Die4Dixie (talk) 22:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Please don't tell me you don't see a war when it happens :) ;)  --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems like others agree with my assessment. About time there was alittle oversite on that page ;)Die4Dixie (talk) 04:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Revert on Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories
In re: this revert and edit summary. Per talk refers to this talk page section, specifically the discussions with User:Brothejr (the user who originally reverted my changes). Protonk (talk) 23:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Consensus is not clear yet [or maybe it's by now? I didn't check again, yet]. The discussion with Brothejr is only part of the discussion with one editor and is/was not addressing what should be dumped/rewritten or integrated in a different way.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, at the time of writing (or re-adding the content), the only person registering a complaint was Brothejr. the other comments in the thread were variously supportive of the revisions made.  As I said there, I'm not interested in discussing things for the sake of discussing them, so if someone has a real objection to the changes made, let's hear it.  If they don't, I can't imagine why the discussion between me and Brothejr would not settle the matter of the quotes under discussion.  Absent some objection to the changes, what is the 'consensus' we are waiting for? Protonk (talk) 00:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It's just not very vise (in my opinion) to be bold while there is still a discussion going on and probably won't lead to a stable version of the article regarding this issue.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Response to question about Klan
I have answered your question about the Klan on my talkpage. I was not offended in the slightest.--Die4Dixie (talk) 04:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Die4Dixie
I think he means me. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comment. With D4D you never know.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Ashe the Cyborg
Hi, thank you so much for your advice. I did actually use the tildes when posting on the talk page but something screwy happened. Nevertheless, good advice :) ABCGi (talk) 08:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Sh*t happens but it's nothing to worry about since it can be fixed :) . Best, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Ron Paul
Hello, The Magnificent Clean-keeper. I've put forward another proposal in an attempt to resolve the content dispute at Ron Paul. Please take a look and let me know what you think. Thanks! Nick Graves (talk) 17:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Nick. I'll kick in when I have time.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

RE: September 2009/Barack Obama Joker Poster
I had already discussed and sourced that particular bit of information on the articles talk page. The article I sourced the "including democrats" from is already referenced in the article.

However, last time I tried to use the same reference more than once I ended up creating several of the same reference links at the bottom of the article. If you could have a look and help me out with this, that would be awesome.

Hope to hear back soon. Metty (talk) 02:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I will take a look shortly.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Metty (talk) 02:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Done.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

(Oops. Thanks for removing the duplicate quote I just copy and pasted by mistake.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC))

ACORN
Regarding consensus at ACORN, it wasn't just one editor. It was three. Please see Wikidemon's Talk page, I refuse to be baited into an edit war. Satisfy yourself that this edit was fully supported, and then revert yourself. Thanks. 71.57.8.103 (talk) 01:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Nope, it wasn't and you already did get some responses in this regard on both talk pages.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Your ACORN edits
(copy from Noroton's talk page to keep it together)
 * Title: Acorn edit and RS :
 * "Did you really think a fact like that wouldn't have multiple sources?"
 * Nope, but you should know better and should have provided a RS in the first place (although an online source would be preferred). Cheers, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Please point out where a consensus has established that the New York Post is not RS. -- Noroton (talk) 20:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * What is it that you want? You provided another source and Wikidemon converted it into an online one. Problem solved, isn't it?--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You put a note on my page in which you continued to call the New York Post an unreliable source. I wanted to know why. What is it you want? -- Noroton (talk) 20:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * PS: There is a big difference in "it would be investigating" and "is investigating".--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, no, the difference is so trivial as to not be worth mentioning. You didn't answer my question. -- Noroton (talk) 20:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

National dish article
Hi, thank you for your response. I am sorry that I can't get back to you on the discussion over national dish article, specifically on Germany, as I've been terribly busy lately. I will let you know when we can work it out together. Haleth (talk) 12:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

You asked an excellent question. Here's an excellent answer.
In this edit of yours, where you erased the entry on medical marijuana from Presidency of Barack Obama, you commented, "A 'very popular topic'? For whom? Any source that says so or is it just a popular topic for you? rm. 'news section' w/o connection."

OK. That's a legitimate point.

On March 26, 2009, the New York Times reported, "... the first live Internet video chat by an American president... after 3.6 million votes were cast, one of the top questions turned out to be a query on whether legalizing marijuana..."

So there you have it. The New York Times has addressed your concern. Please revert your edit. Thank you.

Grundle2600 (talk) 21:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

An excellent answer? Maybe by your standards, not by mine. Let's summarize the notability by using your source:


 * Over "100,000 questions were submitted".
 * Over "3.6 million votes were cast" to select the "most popular" questions (but what is the total # of votes?)..
 * "after 3.6 million votes were cast, one of the top questions turned out to be a query on whether legalizing marijuana might stimulate the economy by allowing the government to regulate and tax the drug." So was it really about the drug itself?
 * Obama quote about this: “I don’t know what this says about the online audience...". That one is a funny question that I'm asking myself.
 * "more than 64,000 people watched President Obama answer questions on Thursday in the first live Internet video chat by an American president". Huh? Quite a low number considering the number of questions submitted and the millions of votes cast, doesn't this raise a question in your own mind?
 * And finally, was this whole thing brought up again besides when it was "news"? (At this point I want to remind you about wp:NOTNEWS).


 * So why do you think it belongs in the article and to top it up, as you did, deserves even it's own section without connection what-so-ever? And please don't give me, at any point, your standard "NPOV"-lecture that you're spreading around. To be blunt (and I know it is not very polite from my side but my patience is running out fast now), why don't you shove it up yours till it hits your brain so you understand what you are talking about? Take it as a matter of speech even so it sounds somehow is for sure highly offensive. I just don't know how I can make some simple things clear to you (and I'm not the only one). Look, I neither love nor hate you. You're just not a good WP editor and probably never going to be one (when it comes to politics) but rather could or would be a good news reporter (and again, when it comes to politics). I mentioned this at least ones at some point.


 * Anyways, wish you the best (I really do), The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Roman Polanski
I'm trying to keep the baying mob which is gathering on Talk:Roman Polanski from burning down the cinema. Would you mind taking a look? Cheers, Crafty (talk) 00:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, besides other things I'm busy watching the article itself (even so user:Sinneed does a pretty good job there keeping notorious "crap" out there) although I have to call it a night shortly. Can't promise anything but I'll try to keep an eye at the article's talk page the next few days, depending on the news that come in (if any). Just keep your head up and poor some water on the "cinema". Best, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Cheers, I've just reverted Urban's revert of your revert on the article page. But I think that's about all I can do without tripping over 3RR. Crafty (talk) 00:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

You made an honest mistake.
You made an honest mistake with the comment that you wrote when you made this edit. Your comment says that I violated my restriction. You are wrong. I am allowed one revert per week, per each Obama related article. I did not violate that restriction.

In addition, the information that I added is relevant and well sourced. Please revert your edit. Thank you.

Grundle2600 (talk) 22:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * That is your interpretation. I try to stick to the facts. Best, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * If the facts back up your accusation that I violated my restriction, then please post links to the two reverts that I made to the article with a one week time period. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, wait. I see. I did add the same information twice in under a week, but I did not realize it when I did it the second time. I apologize. That was my fault. I thought the original objection was that I was synthesizing two things together into one. So by adding them into separate sections, I was not doing that, so there is no possibility of synthesis. In order to prove my good faith, I will avoid editing that particular article for the rest of October 2009, based on that standard time clock that's located in England. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * What you should avoid is that editors (like me) have to remind you about your restrictions that can get you blocked for some extended time if you don't obey them. I'll be the last one filing a report but don't count on other editors to give you the same kind of slack.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I should be asking you
Does LotLE get some sort of indulgence for his abrasive comments in his edit summaries? And are you likewise immune regarding your false sock accusations against me? 64.208.230.145 (talk) 20:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Why should I care about "LotLE" and why should I (and everybody else here) think that you're anything else but a sock? If you prefer to be taking serious in certain areas of WP, you might want to create an account [and I'm pretty sure you already have at least one]; But of course, you can choose whatever suits you best. Till then, have a fun and nice day.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * And if you have an answer to my question in my edit summary feel free to post it.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

One of those recurring IPs
Perhaps you might take a look at the recent edits by User:64.208.230.145. You've had some contact with this editor and his/her disruptive edits. In particular, I noticed the IPs insertion of an unnecessary and duplicative direct quote in Ward Churchill academic misconduct investigation today. I've taken it out, but obviously need to avoid 3RR myself. LotLE × talk 18:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I've explained my position on the article Talk page, and more fully on Lulu's User Talk page. Please review before supporting his edit war. Thanks. 64.208.230.145 (talk) 19:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

This is my alternative account....
...and I am not using this account for any abusive sockpuppetry activities. I decided to create this account for security reasons. Notify all users that I am using this as an alternative.--Das Sicherheit (talk) 02:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The alternative account for 7107delicious, BTW.--Das Sicherheit (talk) 02:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Have we met before? Just wondering why you're posting this on my talk page.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Heh.
You have teh funnay. I like it. :) Crafty (talk) 22:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Crafty. In real live I'm the funny kind although online I'm more and more perceived as a "rough" kind of person. But who cares! ;) Thanks anyways for your post. Cheers, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I relate in part to section two and five of your user page. :)) The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Underachieving Busy-Bodies of the 'Pedia Unite! Or interfere! Or something. :) Crafty (talk) 23:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll stick with/to "or something". ;) The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

More seriously
Given AniMate's insistence on shutting down the ANI Rimarama, I'm mulling over the wisdom of commencing WP:RFC/U proceedings against Ottava. Only mulling mind you. What say you? Crafty (talk) 01:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Please see my last comment at AniMate's talk page ; But I'll keep on watching Ottava from now on and if there is an RFC on him I might contribute to it with my short "painful" experience (with this editor). So long, I have to call it a night.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Out of curiosity and else: Do you have some personal experience (as an editor of course) with Ottava? If so, would you mind to give me a short personal opinion summary of it? Like I said, I'm just (or mostly just to be honest) curious and if I decide to let myself be drawn in into this potential RFC I prefer to be ahead, at least a little bit. Thanks in any case, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop
As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome. For the Arbitration Committee, Risker (talk) 08:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Wastful/ Waterjuice.
I see that you suspect that Wastful is a sockpuppet. So do i. User_talk:Wastful do you think we should send this to WP:SPI. Thanks. Oldag07 (talk) 22:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * See evidence: former waterjuice edit and a recent edit Oldag07 (talk) 22:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Please see Sockpuppet investigations/Waterjuice and comment there if so inclined. Thanks, Postoak (talk) 04:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Seems to be solved for now as the "wasteful juice" account is blocked. Let's see where this monkey pops up next. Best to you and Oldag07, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * As I expected, our little monkey in diapers popped up again in no time . Of course I had to sent "it" back home (and w/o bananas; Poor monkey). Passes the duck test with flying colors .The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I tagged the third account. I will report if s/he starts to vandalize. Thanks, Postoak (talk) 00:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * [Copy of my response at Postoak's talkpage:
 * Responding from what you left on my talk page: "Thanks"? No no no, thank you for taking care of this. I'll keep an eye on it and let you know if I discover any further update. Cheers, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)]

polanski
I am unsure, why did you revert the edit on polanski, there is an active discussion on the talkpage and the blp noticeboard, please explain why you simply reverted with no discussion and no edit summary? Off2riorob (talk) 18:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * At the time it was still an BLP issue, although I didn't check the talk page again before reverting as I was in a rush and therefore missed that one editor finally came up with a RS to back up the edit in question. It's as simple as this. My edit summary (that was something like: "rv. again per BLP" or similar) was lost by my naughty mouse but being under time pressure and I thought it should be clear enough anyways I didn't feel the need to "fix" it. BTW, the editor I reversed (which wasn't you) didn't complain. Maybe s/he understood? Best, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
For tidying up a second accidental deletion in an edit conflict on Global Warming. --BozMo talk 20:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem. Cheers, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy Festivus!
Happy Festivus! Grundle2600 (talk) 19:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Huh? Festivus today? The article says otherwise and although I'm a big fan of Seinfeld I don't celebrate this notable "federal holyday" or do I? Having a good bottle of wine stored I might change my mindset and take it as an excuse to pop the cork. Happy Festivus and happy Holydays to you, Grundle. The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not until a few weeks, but I like to be early. It's a non-denominational holiday for everyone. Thanks for your kind words! Grundle2600 (talk) 18:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

LeadSongDog come howl  15:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas.--Sky Attacker   the legend reborn...  01:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Formally complain about PilgrimRose
I am now so fed up with PilgrimRose that I want her formally reviewed by an admin. How do I go about it, seeing that there is already a section on her activities on the ANI? Do I need to do more that I have done already (see ANI page)? I would appreciate your assistance as I have never done this before. Cheers rturus (talk) 19:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll see and I might give you a hand with this but I'm not up to date right now although I posted my initial intend from ANI at Bigtimepeace's talkpage. Let's wait for his response. In any case, Bigtimepeace is a very nice admin and IMEx always tries to calm things down with kind words, pointing out "misbehavior" against policies and common sense to whoever seems to have a misunderstanding in regards of them. I'm exhausted but will try to comment further at as later point. Ciao, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It is not a problem at the moment. I am making some more conciliatory moves and LeadSongDog seems to be taking an interest. I don't want to go RFC, just get an admin to get her to retract the misrepresentation of me really.  Honestly, she's a real PITA - ciao rturus (talk) 21:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand and BTW, Bigtimepeace is an admin. Cheers, Ciao, Saludos, etc. ;), The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Character Assassination
I am rather dismayed by Bigtimepeace's "resolution" to your ANI. It seems to me that he has totally failed to recognise my attempts to placate PilgrimRose and paid no attention to her persistent character assassination of me. I have posted something here on my talk page and I would be grateful if you could spare the time to review what I have written and I would appreciate any comments. I really don't want to be seen as some pedant who drags things on and on but I also don't see why PR should be allowed to indulge in character assassination of me with no comeback. rturus (talk) 16:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Rturus, please don't get me wrong but despite that I found Pilgrim's edits including her attacks extremely counterproductive which made me place my very first thread at ANI my actual intention was finally understood and addressed by user and admin Bigtimepeace. I really understand your point that this wasn't followed as much as it could but sometimes it is better to let things go and see what comes out of it. You could keep on collecting diffs, past ones and future ones if Pilgrim (who ceased for now his/her behavior for the better) would go back to old pattern and some administrative action would be needed. Till then (and I think and hope it won't happen) chill out and suck it up. Don't take it personally and be the bigger man or woman. That's how it works for me ;).
 * I'm not looking much into the article itself lately since it has become mostly a wp:OR disregarding the very simple and yet essential rule of wp:RS's. As I said before, it will take a loooong time till this WP entry will be proper sourced and balanced and I'll not getting off dry land to interfere till the right time has come. Hope you don't mind to much. I wish you the best as I do for all who keep their bias out of this article. Ciao, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries there MDC, I had already decided to "take one for the team" and just let it drop. I too am getting a bit fed up with the whole thing and I think I'm just going to fade into the distance from the Kercher subject.  Thanks for your words though, I do appreciate it.  Cheers.  rturus (talk) 00:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Grundle and Diane Francis article
Whole thread with context to be found here.


 * It's now archived here. Grundle2600 (talk) 04:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

External links in Soundproofing, and related articles
Hi TMCK: I've undone | your recent edit which removed all external links from the noted article(s). When I checked the links I found that they didn't contravene wp:Spam as they weren't promotional advertising pages, and they actually provided technical information directly related to the subject matter. Such sites are beneficial to those interested in soundproofing as they impart specific technical information. I did change the last item on the list to point directly to a sound-proofing article rather than the main index page which had a minor advertising strip at the very top. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 13:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Please check the links again. Also I've not an expertise as for being an expert in this area (besides knowing the physics of it) I do think that at least most of those external links are commercial spam [please just take a look at their homepage and keep in mind that besides being informative, their main point is to promote and sell their product(s) which shows their commercial intent]. I'll leave it up to you to make changes as I don't see you as one of those spammers. Thanks for your note, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi again tmck: I appreciate both your cooperation and diligence helping to maintain WP's standards. SPAM is absolutely a problem; moreover its tricky to handle due to the possible erasure of valid and useful webpages directly related to the WP article. As a general rule and also referring to Wikipedia's Spam policies, I permit external links that directly address the article's subject matter so long as they don't self promote or advertise.  This a.m. I restored several  soundproofing/noise reduction links that fell into that category, and also left several others off which did self-promote. Again, its a bit of nuanced art to find the correct line to accept/reject a link, but it can be done properly with practice.  Best:  HarryZilber (talk) 23:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand your point and must admit that I'm applying WP's spam rule very strictly (even so not always). As I said before, in this case I will leave it up to you on deciding which "spam" we can tolerate for the good of the project and which should go. Since I have those links in my User:The Magnificent Clean-keeper/Sandbox I might by mistake remove one or more again at some point so please feel free to revert me if this happens although I can assure you it won't happen within the next few month as I will remember and obey your judgment. Best, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas Tree Worm!!!


Merry Christmas Tree Worm!!! Grundle2600 (talk) 05:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Spoken version
Seriously? I gave an explanatory edit summary, and it is by no means a requirement to point to a related talk page discussion. I hardly think it was worth bothering my talk page with it. In fact, I'd really rather you hadn't. People with 14,000+ Wikipedia edits don't really need lectures on edit summaries. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * resp. with context | here The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi
Can you please explain your reverts of my edits?--Epeefleche (talk) 02:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure I can and I already did so in my edit summaries. But please check the article's edit history where you can see that those edits where reversed several times and not just by me.
 * About plastic explosives: Read the WP article about PETN.
 * About his father being one of the "richest man in Africa": Read the source as he is one of the richest in Nigeria, not Africa.
 * About "also now known as the lap-bomber": See the source which is clearly spam and also reverted more than once.
 * Hope that cleared things up. The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Will address one by one. The supporting ref to his being one of the richest men in Africa had been there previously -- would be interesting to see who deleted it.  In any event, have restored it, along w/text.  Its better next time to avoid this problem to indicate citation needed.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree as to lap bomber.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added sources, including articles from the NY Times and Washington Post, calling PETN a plastic explosive.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)--Epeefleche


 * Please take a look at: Talk:Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. Thanks, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It is there where we should keep further comments regarding the article. Best, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Helioculture image.jpg
Many thanks for creating this. If you think it's "not exactly state of the art" you must never have seen any of my efforts! All the best, Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your kind words. Besides having software problems (and by that I mean I couldn't use my preferred software and I'm not even mention my beloved old fashion drafting bord), I have a graphic design background and therefore my personal standards are higher than average, although there is no embarrassment not to live up to it, not for me or you or anybody else. I also might getting "to old" [especially my eye sight is giving up] to provide more professional work. ;)
 * Best, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * BTW, If you ever have a similar file (/drawing) that needs to be worked on for copyright reasons or other let me know. As long as there is no rush I'll be happy to help you out. Again, thanks a lot for your post here, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * That is a very kind offer that I will surely keep in mind! Thanks again, Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You're welcome (and you'd give me something to kill time :)  ). The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * PS: For a good cause I'd say. The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Please see
please see this''' [] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 19:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I will take a look in a moment but be aware that I almost didn't believe the bright orange yellowish "You have new messages (last change)."-link anymore after you "scammed" me :D The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * First I thought like umh, not my style or at least not any more but before 3 minutes have passed I "trashed" my previous thoughts. "Gratefull dead"! Of course! I'm getting to old to remember titles and even faces.... What a bummer. So enjoy your ride! :)))) Best, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * And now I just did what I should've done earlier; I've read your user page. I really should have done this in the first place but you know how "editors" are. At the end, we're all just human with all the mistakes that come with it.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Cistercian or Trappistine???
LOL, I love your edit. I was thinking that same thing, but since the editor feels so strongly I moved it to the talk page. Nice save. Malke 2010  21:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I've just posted a comment about my edit at the article's talk page. Cheers, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

ANI
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Chhe (talk)

Murder of Meredith Kercher
Thanks for taking an interest in the Murder of Meredith Kercher article. Every time I look at it just makes me angry because (to my probably prejudiced mind) Zlykinskyja seems to be trying to turn it into an "Amanda Knox is innocent" article. I keep deciding to take the article off my watchlist then, a few days later, I weaken and just have to take a peek and see what has happened to it! It would be good to get some independent views and a clearer consensus. If you can contribute to that, it would be of great benefit to the article. Bluewave (talk) 22:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't have much time to edit but I'm watching this article for a long time and have similar feelings about it although without anger. Zlykinskyja is just doing very much the same of what she did before under another account and there is little hope in my mind that it will change. Still, keep it up and be bold. Cheers, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * What other account? This editor may be linked to the boyfriend or the boyfriend's country.  I asked an admin about single purpose accounts, which this certainly is, and I've shown her diffs of edits.  It would be helpful to know what other accounts this editor has used.  I also left a 3rr warning and asked this editor to adhere to WP:RELIABLE reliable sources. Malke  2010  06:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Gwen Gale has it right per wp:duck See here.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 14:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, saw that. Well, it's stopped for now and Bluewave is editing back to neutral pov.  He's doing a good job over there. Malke  2010  14:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm concerned about the inclusion of the previous break-ins at the nursery school, etc., regarding Rudy Guede and all the business about knives, etc. It's seeming to me that the material is slanted towards his guilt, in fact, unquestionable guilt even, but Knox's guilt is presented as uncertain.  My point is the WP:UNDUE against Guede.  But I'm hesitant to raise it on the talk page just yet because I don't want to cause a ruckus.  Do you think I'm reading into this? Malke  2010  20:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No doubt about that IMO. Certain editors are focusing on Guede as the "bad guy who has to take all the blame" and forget editing from a neutral stand point. Anyhow, what needs to be revised (as discussed on talk) is his "mini-bio" and the trial section. Ones the court papers of the ruling are available we can see and decide which parts of the trial have enough weight to be included. Cheers, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed. As it stands now, the business about his adopted parent calling him a 'tremendous liar' and the way the material is arranged as if this is the obvious conclusion from his past childhood, behavior, etc., is definitely not wikipedia neutral POV.  This section needs balance.  And what evidence proves he even stabbed her?  With his using the towel, it might even be he tried to save her.  And why did he get a fast track trial?  That was actually the question that brought me to the page a long time ago.  Too much weight here against him.  This needs to be sorted out. Malke  2010  21:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed by me too (about the way Guede is described). Regarding the fast track trial, that was his choice. By choosing fast-track, if found guilty, you automatically get a 25% reduction in sentence. And, Magnificent Clean-keeper, I've been caught TWICE by your joke message notification!!! Grrrr!!!! Bluewave (talk) 22:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "I've been caught TWICE by your joke message notification!!! Grrrr!!!!".
 * Sorry? :) The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Curious, what should we do about the disruptions of Zlykinskyja?


 * See my response below,The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

TMCK, we were called out!
By the user Zlykinskyja! How about that! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathancjudd (talk • contribs) 00:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Gwen Gale is keeping an eye on this and if the editor in question keeps on acting inappropriate a report to one of the boards can be filed. I gave Zlykinskyja some slack in the past in hope of improvement from his/her side but the limit is approaching. We'll see.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Saw the post. Good you pointed it out (the legal thing, too). Malke  2010  01:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Should we all ask Zlykinskyja to stop editing for a bit? Jonathan has suggested it to her. Malke  2010  03:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * We cannot ask an editor to stop editing, s/he has any right to do so but if there are any violations of rules that call for restrictions they need to be addressed at the appropriate board. Right now I think we should wait and see what happens and go from there. Since Gwen is overlooking the article a bit she might as well act if necessary.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If we would ask Zlykinskyja that, I'm sure it wouldn't have any effect whatsoever.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right, it's better to wait for Gwen Gale. Anything we say will just be shouting in the wind. Malke  2010  03:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Gone with the wind! Oh dear :) The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for reverting that deletion on my post over at you know where. I just removed the link because Zlykinskyja thinks I posted Gwen's comment in order to link back to Gwen's page.  I did no such thing.  And this just reaffirms, "No good deed. . ." Malke  2010  22:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. Also you didn't have to I was thinking of asking you to remove it anyways as a gesture of goodwill but I see you already did. Cheers, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, and thanks for the kind words. I'm needing a few today. Malke  2010  23:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I've been meaning to ask about the diagram of the apartment. I know who provided it I think but my question is, can something like this be placed in an article?  Is it an accurate rendering of the apartment?  Could it be considered POV pushing as it's presented? Malke  2010  23:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It is pretty close to an original drawing from a RS. So yes, it can stay.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, good to know. Also, I couldn't figure out the revert you just did.  What personal comments were added?  Actual personal remarks added to the article? Malke  2010  23:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

If you look close you can see a "red dot" that Zlykinskyja placed there to misuse editsummaries instead of using the talk page. S/he just did it again and getting ftired of this. So if it continues like this s/he'll find her/himself at wp:ANI in no time. Oh, and before she left a marker in the article to remember where the Trump quote was.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * AN/I seems like the train coming down the tracks. It's not quite here yet but you can see it. Malke  2010  00:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops, sorry MCK, didn't see that. Is the train still heading to the station? Malke  2010  06:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I guess so... The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 06:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * XD, hilarious. Malke 2010  06:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Please enlighten me. What does XD stand for?The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 06:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You know, like when you're laughing hard. XD, see also: :D, which is just smiling, like when Irish eyes are smilin' :D, Malke  2010  07:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The "X" put me off track. Doh!The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Zlykinskyja
Magnificent Clean-Keeper, stop harassing me, stop coming after me and stop posting on my Talk page. I am here to research and write, not to have to put up with this nonsense. Zlykinskyja (talk) 00:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You expect good faith and so you should assume the same regarding your fellow editors. Unfortunately I just don't see it from your side.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm appreciated you commented on my talk page instead in the article's edit summary and you're welcome to express your opinion here as long as you do it in a civil manner.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Although with such unfounded bad faith accusations you won't get far.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * And stop plotting against me like you are doing on this page, with these plans to file charges against me. That is not good faith. It is disruptive and it is not funny. I do not want any further contact with you. Zlykinskyja (talk) 01:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * First of all: If you don't want to have "any further contact with me" the first step would be not to post here or mention my name somewhere else.
 * Second: Nobody is "plotting" against you but rather see some problematic edit behavior from your side and there is agreement up to a certain point between editors. You seem not to be willing (at all) to work with other editors you disagree with despite that collaboration is one of Wikipedia's most important features and a must to create quality articles.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

St. Paddy's Day
There's a message for you here. Malke 2010  21:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * replied.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I got it. Malke 2010  01:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Harassment by Magnificient Clean-Keeper
Magnificent Clean-Keeper: STOP HARASSING ME. STOP DELETING MY WORK. I was simply trying to write on-line. I should be able to compose on-line without this harassment. I was simply doing my writing and researching as I typed. I had good sources for each statement. But it is simply easier to go back and put in the cites when finished composing. I specifically noted that I was intending to add cites to the new text!!!!!!!! It was OBVIOUS that is what I was doing. STOP HARASSING ME. I have as much of a privilege to contribute to Wikipedia as you do. Now I don't even know where my text is and I am too upset to continue writing. LEAVE ME ALONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!I If you continue harassing me I am going to report you.Zlykinskyja (talk) 19:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

TO DELETE TEXT WHILE SOMEONE IS COMPOSING TOTALLY WASTES THE EDITOR'S TIME AND IS INTENDED TO HARASS THE WRITER, NOT TO SERVE THE INTERESTS OF WRITING A GOOD ARTICLE, WHICH IS THE PURPOSE OF WIKIPEDIA. NOW MY TEXT IS GONE SOMEWHERE JUST BECAUSE YOU WOULD NOT ALLOW ME THE DECENCY OF COMPLETING WHAT I WAS WRITING SO THAT I COULD THEN ADD ALL OF THE SOURCES THAT TOOK ME A LONG TIME TO FIND AND HAD TO TRY TO TRANSLATE FROM ITALIAN. YOU ARE INTENTIONALLY HARASSING ME AND TRYING TO INTIMIDATE ME FROM PARTICIPATING IN WIKIPEDIA, AS REFLECTED BY YOUR PLOT AND JOKES ON YOUR TALK PAGE ABOUT INTENDING TO SEEK SANCTIONS AGAINST ME. YOU ARE INTENTIONALLY TRYING TO INSTIGATE SOMETHING SO THAT YOU CAN THEN FILE A COMPLAINT AGAINST ME. LEAVE ME ALONE. I HAVE HAD ENOUGH. THIS IS A TYPE OF CENSORSHIP OF THE ARTICLE.Zlykinskyja (talk) 20:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, deleting comments are still preserved in the edit history (and the rest).The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Zlykinskyja: you aren't winning friends here. Magnificent Clean Keeper is a well respected editor here on Wikipedia and it seems he's trying to give you some good advice.  He's not trying to engage you in an argument.  Neither is he harassing you.  Please take my suggestions, even if you delete them too.
 * 1) don't delete posts to your talk page. Start an archive bot.
 * 2) don't use all capital letters. It's screaming and can be seen as giving you less credibility
 * 3) Don't compose on-line without citations and if you've forgotten one, add in 'citation needed' and then highlight as if it were a reference. Other editors will tolerate this for a short time on a high traffic article, but be quick about fixing that.
 * 4) Thank the other editors when they point out things to you. You'll be surprised how far that takes you.
 * 5) Keep threads in order and don't put your comments out of order, even if you think you need to reply directly. The other editor you are addressing will see your post and respond to it.
 * 6) At the end of the user names are real people with feelings, just like you. WP:AGF.  Believe it or not, editors here are trying to do that for you.  :)  Malke  2010  20:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Ditto.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Already there?
Edits at Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's article. The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it was in the article, but I was just adding him to the category. Perhaps you were mistakenly confusing holocaust denial with 9/11 denial? TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Mh, you added a template that was already there under a slighly different name. Hold on a sec. and I'll check.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Here you go:, which was added by Kborer, is basically the same as  which you added. Anyways, chose the one you think is the better one in regards of the title (my guess now would be yours). The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You have lots of cool tricks up your sleeve. I did not know about this template business.  And thanks for teaching me how to make something really small .  Cheers.  Malke  2010  23:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I only know a fraction of what is out here but I know the most common templates and some other useful tools (or know where and how to find them). If you ever need some help finding what you're looking for just drop me a line. I'll do my best to help you out, although as for the "template business" mentioned above I'm not into it but rather just know (I think) when such template should be applied. But if I want to add templates and categories and are not sure about it, I remember which editors to ask. Best, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * BTW: "''up my sleeves" would make me quite a remarkable magician since where I live, short sleeves are a must. ;) The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, I put mine back in since it added him to the category (the other one didn't appear to do so). TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. Guess you remembered to remove the other one or if not I'll do so.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I need some help please, Illinois gubernatorial election, 2010
Sorry to bother you, but you have been helpful in the past, and I was hoping you could help me now. I'm having a problem with a user removing referenced information, without cause from the article Illinois gubernatorial election, 2010. There is two sections of information which a user User talk:GageSkidmore has repeatedly removed without explaining why or discussing it on the talk page and it appears to me that these edits have been done out of a personal bias. The first issue involves the listing of Rich Whitney in the polling table currently there are three polls listed and one of the three specifically lists Whitney, I believe that this merits his inclusion as a separate candidate listed in the polling table rather then lumped in the other column, the other user does not agree. My rational is that with so few polls 1 in 3 merits inclusion (obviously once more data is available inclusion or not will be obvious) No other user has objected to his inclusion and the user never responded to my message at his talk page about the issue. The second issue involves how the candidate Rich Whitney is listed in the article. In Illinois there are three legally established political parties that have primary elections the Republican, Democratic, and Green Parties. There had been a green primary section until the user removed it and added whitney to the other candidates in a third party/independents section. Whitney unlike the other candidates in the third party/independents section is already on the November ballot. The Primary section had referenced information relating to the number of votes he received and the fact that he ran unopposed in the primary. In light of these facts I see no reason why he keeps removing this material unless it is out of a personal POV bias, I could use some help dealing with this user and the article thank you for your consideration. unsigned user:Highground79 22:02, March 10, 2010


 * What I can see in a quick review, is that there is a new user account who is very familiar with WP, which means s/he is most likely not as "new" as s/he appears . Right now it would take to much time (which I don't have at this point) to go over it but I'll try to take a closer look within the next days which might be tomorrow (w/o a promise). While I didn't go over the edits yet it sure raises a red flag even if the editors contributions turned to out to be genuine. We'll see.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I just saw that while I was editing election articles in general, this one I've not on my watchlist which means I've not made any edit to it as to date. If it is somehow connected to another election related article I did edit or at least contributed to a related talk page it would be fair game to contact me. Otherwise, also I'm sure you acted in good faith, I would like to point you to wp:canvass and WP:FORUMSHOP to prevent potential trouble for yourself. Still, as I said, I will check on your concern you pointed out here and let you know in case they are founded somehow. Best, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * PS: I've aded the article to my watch list by now.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

MoMK trial section
OK I've added my text in now. Many thanks for your support and encouragement. Bluewave (talk) 14:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * On the wikialert, what is the hoped for outcome here? Do admins make decisions there?  My name is on that noticeboard and I didn't do any of what is being claimed, and other editors come by and make personal attacks and yet nothing seems to be getting resolved. So I don't understand the point of this noticeboard.  I agree something needs to be done regarding the MofMK editing situation, but I don't understand how this noticeboard will help.  Can editors be blocked there?  Do editors even have to participate?  I'd be happy to comment if it will help ease problems on MofMK.  Thanks,  Malke  2010  20:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * also, might we really be looking at 3RR here and and this bad thing? I've just looked over the edits and the edit summaries. The edit summaries are clearly WP:UNCIVIL.  Thanks,  Malke  2010  20:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * What you've called "this bad thing" in your comment above I've pointed out in an editsummary together with other links here. As for the effectiveness of the notice board I've posted, it is a mild step from my side to get some input and not using those boards I pointed out there. I don't like reporting editors at any board besides for plain vandalism but Pilgrimrose aka Zlykinskyja changed my mind. I hope something good comes out of it and there will be no need for further action but we'll see. When feeling impatience I usually keep in mind that WP has no deadline which puts me back on track. CheersThe Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining that. I agree, I don't like noticeboards except for plain vandalism and there is no deadline here.  I think this is a good idea as a mild first step and it shows a sincere desire to help ease things over there.  I will post to the wikialert now.  Thanks,  Malke  2010  22:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your sincere words. I do see Z. as a good faith editor but s/he doesn't go by the rules and doesn't apply the same standards s/he expects for him/herself to other editor but doing quite the opposite by only "allowing" editors to be either in a pro-or-anti-Amanda-crowd and leaving no place in-between which is the WP way to go. By that s/he put him/herself even more clearly in the Amanda-fansite-crowd what is one of the reasons we have POV-editing problems at the article in the first place.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * bitteschon.  Malke  2010  23:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Dankeschön ;) The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * XD Malke  2010  23:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * How can I top it? Guess that will do: XXXXXXDDDDDD, :P LOL.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * that's hilarious XD Okay, I can't top that.   Malke  2010  23:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * That means I win in this round. XD (but you'll get your turn ;) ) The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Murder of Meredith Kercher (splitt up, new section)
Split up from upper section.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see this situation as funny at all. Zlykinskyja (talk) 00:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Gosh. You don't get what we're laughing about. It has nothing to do with you or even the article in question.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Seriously, this little back and forth has nothing to do with the article. The situation isn't funny.  We're being funny.  We mean that.  We're not kidding. Verstehen Sie, bitte? Malke  2010  19:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Ditto, but let's translate some for our non German speaking editors: "Verstehen Sie, bitte?" means "Do you understand?" or "do you get it?". "Bitte" means please as most people know but has no importance and bearing in this context. Best to Malke and all who read this, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 19:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yep, MCK's right about the bitte. But in Irish-German it means, "okey dokey?" Malke  2010  20:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Guess you need to teach me Irish-German then. Deal? Or to say it in Irish-American: Okey dokey? (which is pretty much adopted at least in American English but you sure know that ;) . Gruesse von der amerikanischen oestlichen Suedkueste, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Grube von Santa Monica mein neuer Freund. :)  Malke  2010  21:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Gruesse (Grüße) zurück aus Tampa Bay an meine neue Freundin aus Kalifornien. :) The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * sehr gut mein Freund. Wie ist das Wetter dort?  Did I get Grube wrong?  It should be Gruesse? Malke  2010  21:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * How did you make the umlaut? Malke 2010  22:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Simple: Ones you're at the edit page click "Latin" at the drop down menu ;) The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Cool tip. Like learning to make things small .   Malke  2010  22:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You should know by now that you always can ask me for hints and tips and I'll always will give you an answer to my best knowledge as long as I have any. XD The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Danke, Ich erinnere mich daran. :)   Malke  2010  03:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I read The Times most days and, if an article takes my interest, I sometimes have a look at the Wikipedia coverage and maybe take an interest in working on it. A couple of weeks ago, the Times leader column was devoted to the case of someone called Linda Carty: I had a quick look at Wikipedia, at the time, and added the page to my watchlist, thinking I might do some work on the article when things quieten down on MoMK. Do you think right now would be a bad time to start work on Linda Carty? ;-) Bluewave (talk) 10:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Although the article needs some work (after yesterday and in general) I would suggest not to make major edits over there at least for a certain amount of time to not fire up another silly dispute with the same editor. I guess others will kick in sooner or later and improve that article. That's just my thought and you have to make your own decision. Best, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 16:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Hope you didn't fall for the "new message" link again :) The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 16:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Only joking about starting to edit Linda Carty (though I did indeed notice it in The Times and truly had planned to look it it sometime). But no,I'm not looking for another dispute! And that makes two visits to your talk page where I've had the willpower not to click on the "New message" link. Bluewave (talk) 17:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Got it; I mean your joke. And as I mentioned at Wikiquette alerts more than ones, I added it on my watchlist after an editor pointed it out as an example at MoMK's talk page. Anyhow, we don't have to make "excuses" for editing any article in good faith and with the intend to improve it just because a certain editor happens to do some editing there too. Guess why Z. was editing there suddenly? You and I and everyone involved know the answer very well. Big cheers, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * PS: DO NOT CLICK ON THE ORANGE LINK AT THE TOP OF MY PAGE :) The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * LOL! (and, yes, you really did make me laugh out loud!) Bluewave (talk) 18:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Glad I could spread some laughing gas. XD The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 19:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

More from Zlykinskyja's talk page (what by now I call ABF edits as there is no excuse for it anymore)
Bad faith edits and accusations:





(this includes refactoring editors comments after they where replied to)



(more minor refactoring)



(making a wp:point by highlighting twenty times without providing any evidence)



(More unfounded and unproven accusations against me [still not addressing nor acknowledging incivility issues against several editors as pointed out at wp:Wikiquette alerts)

"The non-bold text below is the discussion that followed after he set me up so that he could use my distress as evidence that I was being uncivil to him, never acknowledging that he had just deleted over a dozen of my edits."

Thick and tired of it: The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

From Malke
Hallo, wo sind Sie? Malke 2010  18:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Momentan bin ich ich hier wie Du sehen kannst aber ansonsten mit anderen Problemen beschaeftigt. Zum Beispiel mit meinem Telefonanschluss der mal wieder nicht geht. Gluecklicherweise ist mein DSL davon nicht betroffen sodass ich nicht ganz von der Aussenwelt ausgeschlossen bin. Uebrigens, ich denke wir sind "per Du" oder wenn nicht, moechte ich Dir mein "Du" hiermit anbieten. Ich bin mir sicher dass Du Dich an den Unterschied zwischen "Sie" und "Du" erinnerst nachdem ich Dich darauf hingewiesen habe, nicht? ;)
 * Best(e Gruesse), TMC
 * Yes, I have to remember Du. But thing is, I remember the verbs like this: Sie Verstahen, Sie Sprechen.  So I have to go back and look up the proper form for Du and that is slow.  When I want to be fast I just use that form.  But think of it as Du, Mein Freund. XD.  Malke  2010  18:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

ani
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Gerardw (talk) 15:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You must be kidding.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 16:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I see that Z has added a complaint about you and me to that discussion. Unbelievable, in view of the independent advice given at the Wikiquette page. Bluewave (talk) 18:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yep. Same old, nothing new. BTW, the thread was closed by a funny admin :) and I gave him/her a cake. Hope s/he likes it. The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Common friend...
First of all, wie geht's? Then, I'm writing here, because, reading Z.'z talk page, I see that he keeps making comments about you, as you can see here, here and here. In the last diff he also shows a little bit of paranoia...

Apparently, honey did not work; is it time we tried with vinegar (I don't know if this is understandable...)? Salvio giuliano (talk) 14:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Ciao Salvio and thanks for your note. I do follow Z.'s accusations against me (and others) and pretty much everything else involving the MoMK case. I chose not to comment anymore to every unfounded and unproven (still no diffs from Z.'s side) accusation Z. is making on his talk page or else for the moment as it is senseless having to repeat myself over and over again. My point is that I'm trying to give it and myself a well deserved rest from this. But I'm thinking about "vinegar" as the next step if needed  ;)
 * Best, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 14:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment
The "editor" I referenced was not meant to be you. Apologies for any offense taken.--Happysomeone (talk) 16:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't take any offense at all but was just not sure who you're referring to. So now that I know I would like to ask you about the irony you saw since editors are free to choose to comment in one section of a forum without any obligation to respond to another one. So again, could you enlighten me? My brain candle is still not burning as bright as it could:) . Meanwhile, thanks for your response.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 17:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The irony was that the said editor's own conduct was under discussion there, but the editor chose to withdraw and not participate. Rather than try to come to some agreement there, the same editor then saw fit to offer an informed viewpoint in another WQA discussion. It didn't seem appropriate, hence the irony.--Happysomeone (talk) 18:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Other editors chose to do so to w/o any intention of bad faith. I see where you see the irony but I somehow must still agree; But hell, WP would be a boring please with at least some kind of disagreement, don't you think so? Cheers, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree, but as somebody once said (and I'll bet Benjamin Franklin took credit for it) "All good things in moderation." Kind Regards.--Happysomeone (talk) 19:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "...in moderation" and sometimes this kind of moderation can be of service :) The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 19:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikiquette
I noticed a comment by Gerardw that you reinstated. Could you just check it's in the right place. It looks wrong, but I havent been following things! Bluewave (talk) 18:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello Bluewave. Yes, he put it in the other thread.  Also @MCK, message for you on my talk page under the "mail" section.  :)  Malke  2010  18:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * @Bluewave. I disagree with his comment but it is where he put it in the first place. I've removed it by mistake together with his closure of the thread and re-instated it after he and I had a conversation on his talk page. Take a look there to see what happened.
 * You're sure free to comment to his post at wp:Wikiquette alerts as I might do after trying to take a much needed brake. Cheers, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * @Malke: Will check in a moment ;) The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

TO ALL: JUST GIVE ME A SHORT BRAKE, PLEASE XDXDXDXD LOL and thanks. The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

But I'll be back shortly ;) The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm half back. The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 19:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

And I made a mistake that everybody can read here. The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 19:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I wondered about that. I thought that might be the reason, the mix up.  Hilarious. XD   Malke  2010  21:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Hilarious and somehow shameful for not paying enough attention. Can't always blame not using my reading glasses as there was no small print XD The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Happy St. Paddy's Day


Happy St. Paddy's Day, Magnificent O'Clean Keeper. :D Malke  2010  22:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You know I'm not Irish and I don't have a lot of green stuff here but I'll have some broccoli (which I will steam for just a few minutes to a tasty green color) with my dinner and will think about you and the Irish ;) Enjoy celebrating the day. Best wishes, The Magnificent O'Clean-keeper (talk) 23:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * XD. Danke.  However you celebrate it, have a happy one. Genießen Sie die Brokkoli.  Malke  2010  23:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks again, and I will do so right now and take care of dinner as a matter of fact :). Und ich werde mein Broccloi geniesen wie auch den Rest meines Abendessens, yummy. The Magnificent O'Clean-keeper (talk) 23:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

hello
Du hast post. Malke 2010  21:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Danke und erhalten. Bitte lasse mich wissen of Du meine Antwort bekommen hast. Best, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * PS: I'm on "half a break" (not "brake" ;) ) since I have to take care of other business but I'll check my e-mail and WP account. The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring at Murder of Meredith Kercher
Both parties may be sanctioned if this continues. Wait to get consensus on the talk page before reverting again. See WP:EW for the policy. EdJohnston (talk) 01:59, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No worries. I know when to stop. Cheers, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Funny: Asking a question and immediately blanking the section. Mmh The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Nothing prevents you from starting a proper discussion on the article's talk page, if you disagree with the material that User:Zlykinskyja added. If the matter has already been discussed on talk, you could summarize what others have said. Should you obtain a consensus for your version, Z. would have to accept it or be sanctioned. EdJohnston (talk) 02:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It should work like that but some are not playing along. BTW, I'm still wondering why you never advised Z. about the no-legal-thread policy after she posted some nasty things at your talk page. BTW, you where the one blocking her other account (User:PilgrimRose) in the first place. Are you just that kind of a very nice and forgiving person (which would make you a Saint in my mind) or did you just forget? Anyhow, be glad you don't have to deal with this article ;) . Wish you the best, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:01, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Zlykinskyja's section
As she asked me a while ago not to post on her talk page and I didn't besides reasonable warnings and other directly related to her in regards of conduct and issues that I'm supposed to post by policy (she is deleting not only deleting those but also good faith advise I gave her like other editors did too and where ignored and deleted), so basically all post's on her talk page from editors that don't share her views are gone. So now I start this section where I mostly will add comments from or for her. Although I would like to repeat and stress that Zlykinskyja is not welcome here as long as she doesn't post in a civil manner. The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 19:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Debate at AN/I
With regard to your post at ANI, I'm sorry you've ended up being portrayed as the leader of an anti-Knox conspiracy...for a long time, it looked as though I was going to be in the frame for that! Cheers. Bluewave (talk) 11:43, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Just to thank you. ;) You can call me Salvio (talk) 23:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem. The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Thanks, here too. ;)  Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 15:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

On using diffs
It is conventional that the description applied to a diff correlates to the edit it shows. Your description referred to an earlier edit that the diff reverted. While there's nothing wrong with having a diff link to the revert, it should be described as such to prevent confusion. In particularly contentious cases such as this, it is best to provide both diffs, each described. Cheers, User:LeadSongDog come howl  21:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that my description might have been a bit confusing and I realize that after reading thru it again. Cheers, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

No more April Fool'd edits by me in the article space.
I will not make any more April Fool's edits in the article space.

Just in case you never saw it, here is my April Fool's edit from last year.

Grundle2600 (talk) 21:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * No, missed that one. Guess I have to work more on my stalking skills :)  Cheers, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Notification
As an user who commented at this discussion, you may wish to weigh in on Grundle2600's topic ban modification request. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

What's new?
Hallo, Wie sind Sie gewesen? Was mit Ihnen neu ist. Sind Sie glücklich? Ist Ihre Familie gut? Forgive the lack of 'Du.' Malke 2010  22:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Koennte besser gehen aber man soll ja nicht klagen :) . Hoffe bei Dir ist alles klar und die Familie in ordnung. Beste Gruesse und verzeih mir die verspaetete Antwort, TMC (The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC))

The responder agreed to the deletion
Hi Clean keeper, the responder, Crum375 agreed to the deletion, please don't mess with it. I'm talking directly with Jimbo, which is what he wants from here on, thanks. Scott P. (talk) 22:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Can do, but please see WP:REDACT and insert a placeholder. Thanks back, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)