User talk:Cleanr

sorry, I thought you were a vandal. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 23:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro Guerrero

Before you do anything else on your Pedro Guerrero problem, I think you need to consider whether you have made the best choice in disambig namimg. If there is a dominant article under the name - e.g. one that every incoming link wants to point to, then it shoudl get the main name, and the dismbig page should be at Pedro Guerrero (disambigation). Clearly you can choose to put the disambig page at Pedro Guerrero, but only at the cost of making for your back the rod you have just created. See Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Page naming conventions --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Turns out the bulk of the references were due to templates. It's under control now. Cleanr (talk) 15:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Baron & Rocketboom

Hi Cleanr, this is Andrew from Rocketboom. Regarding the edit war that we are in, I'm reaching out to try to resolve the issue here. Lets take a moment to stop editing the article and see if we can work this out. I'll start with my problem. If you have a problem too, let me know:

I'm under the impression that you are one of the few people that we see in our comments section from time to time who really doesn't like me or Rocketboom at all. It may because you think I fired Amanda Congdon (which I didn't do), or it may because you are competing against us. I have said some very harsh things on my blog about a lot of people's work so maybe you have a vengeance. I dont really know of course, but based on the edits that you have made, and the way in which you made them, Im not convinced, and take for granted, that you are purposefully trying to make the article bad. So let me ask you a question directly that will help me with my understanding of why I would take for granted that you are a troll. Perhaps your answer will illuminate something that I am missing and then I can stop trying to defend the article:

Why are you so interested in the Andrew Baron Wikipedia entry and why are you so interested in the Rocketboom entry? What has led you to fight for them? Andrewbaron (talk)

I realize you're used to the confrontational nature of the blogosphere, but this sort of tone isn't really the way things are handled on Wikipedia. But to clear the air: I don't have a blog, I don't have a vlog, nothing I do competes with you in any form, and you've never said anything bad about me or my work on your blog. I haven't touched the Amanda page because I know little about her and I don't find her work interesting or watchable. Since researching her would actually be painful for me, I choose not to. I was drawn to your page because somebody, without discussion, deleted it. I undeleted it! Wikipedia history can be confusing to parse, but you've made a number of mistakes looking through the history and summarizing my actions. Please be more careful with that. You're also playing both sides of the fence by saying you wanted your own page deleted then complaining that I deleted it. Note that I did not delete it, a consensus was reached which led to it being redirected (not deleted) by an admin. Specific to the recent changes on the Rocketboom page, I really have problems with your claim that Steve Jobs mentioned and "premiered" Rocketboom in October when the video on the Apple website shows otherwise. As a sidenote, there are lots of things you could do to improve pages related to things you work on (example: the Joanne Colan page needs a photo). Cleanr (talk) 05:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding, I will address your comments above within the next day. Andrewbaron (talk) 03:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So anyway, you have a pattern that I have identified. Whenever you make a claim, its actually not true but you are very good at using Wikipedia lingo so it "looks" like you know what you are talking about. Obviously most people are too lazy to actually look into it so it seems to be working for you. Aside from your techniques which are verifiable (so while frustrating, blatant), the main thing that I have concluded is that you are not an expert on this kind of information. It would be like me going into an article that involved high level physics, and trying to make arguments and changes based on my understanding of addition and subtraction. Point being, no matter how strongly you feel about it or think something is legit or not, the fact of the matter is (1) you dont know the history, (2) you dont ever look for the hostory, (3)you cant understand the justification for the technical issues (made clear by your responses to technical justifications), and (4) you only edit the article when you can delete stuff and put the article into a negative point a view, but all of your non-negitive suggestions only make it into the discussion pages where you expect someone else to do the work. This indicates to me that you are malicious. That is, you only edit it when its bad, but when its good or neutral, you tell someone else to edit it. You also said that the only reason why you got involved was because I tried to delete my entry. This, as a matter of fact is wrong for it was you that led me to want to delete my entry because you kept messing it up so bad. So you have not answered my questions above directly but you have indirectly made it clear that you are not an authority on this topic matter and will not do the work that is needed to improve the article. So thank you for continuing to not edit the article and I will do you the favor of not editing it either. Andrewbaron (talk) 02:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again you misrepresent the history. Wikipedia maintains a history of all edits and, should a conflict arise, people will go through the history in detail. Summarizing another editor's actions incorrectly will lead to loss of credibility. As I stated above, I got involved with your article originally when I undeleted it in June 2007[1]. You posted that you wanted your article deleted in March 2008 [2]. I don't pretend to be an expert, however I am capable of reading source materials and summarizing their contents. While you may be an expert, your edits frequently are not supported by any verifiable sources (see WP:V and WP:NOR). While some may disagree with my edits (which is encouraged!), others will find your edits disruptive (which is strongly discouraged!) I'm trying to be helpful but I get the feeling that you simply do not understand how wikipedia works and you're taking out your frustrations on me. Please take a moment to read the two policy links I posted here. Cleanr (talk) 03:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen the newest edit war brewing. Please get Enric Naval involved as well. Please try not to 3RR, or sucker Andrew into it,. because I believe you're making a good faith edit. I'm kinda swamped between keeping an eye on an AfD and a current event. We may also need to archive everything but the current thread. Do you know how to do that? MMetro (talk) 19:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@ Cleanr, I warned Andrewbaron about assuming bad faith on Talk:Rocketboom, but I see that you have also assumed bad faith of him on the past "The text was re-added by Andrew Baron himself and appears to be a bad faith edit" [3]. Please refrain making comments on his motivations to make the edits. As a more veteran editor your behaviour should be a good example for him :) New editors will pick and learn the behaviour that they find. Also, it's obvious that we can't read other editor's minds, so we can never be really sure of why they make a certain edit. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]