Jump to content

User talk:Grundle2600/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10→Archive 15


Things to remember when my topic ban expires

My topic ban on editing political articles ends on 15:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC).

Here are some reminders to myself. Anyone else who wishes to add to this, please feel free to do so - thanks.

1) Don't edit war!

2) Don't edit war!

3) Don't edit war!

4) Don't start crazy Obama related articles, because the consensus has decided that such articles should not be started.

5) Don't edit war!

Grundle2600 (talk) 17:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't use wnd.com, obamacrimes.com, or random blogs as your sources. Keep WP:WEIGHT in mind when adding information. Good luck when you get back. (But remember that you'll be on a shortish leash.) PhGustaf (talk) 17:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. I had never heard of obamacrimes.com - but I now see that it is a real website! Grundle2600 (talk) 19:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

This is a test to see what time it is according to wikipedia. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I see I still have 12 minutes until my topic ban expires. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a test to see what time it is. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

My topic ban has expired. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you add to your list of things to remember:
6) WP:RS
7) WP:NOTNEWS
See Talk:Presidency of Barack Obama
Thank you. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 17:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I cited reliable sources. All of the information that I added is relevant and notable. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Blogs from mainstream news websites are acceptable as reliable sources. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
8) Wear Sunscreen! - Wikidemon (talk) 17:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Heh heh. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Please take it slow Grundle. If there is a dispute, bring in outside opinions at the relevant noticeboards and once consensus is reached you will have to abide by it. Good luck. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your advice and kind words. I am not getting into any edit wars. I want to make the articles better. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Now That You're Back...

You seem to be getting in trouble again very quickly. Here are some suggestions:

  1. If you're here on a crusade to "reform" the article, just give up. Wikipedia editors don't do crusades. You'll just piss people off and get banned again. Push your agenda on a blog or wherever, not here.
  2. Limit yourself to one new entry a day, rather than shotgunning with what you've saved up for three months. Let each addition settle down before entering a new one. Else your additions and the inevitable reverts get all mixed up and people lose patience sooner.
  3. Just as an exercise, make a change or two sourced solely to news, not editorial nor blog, articles from solid media: NYT, CNN, AP, Reuters, the like. Stop cherrypicking cheap shots from right-wing blogs.
  4. You've been around long enough to understand WP:RS. WP:NOTNEWS, WP:UNDUE, WP:WEIGHT, and the rest of the alphabet soup. Expect little tolerance if you don't act on that understanding.

Good luck. PhGustaf (talk) 20:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Welcome back to Obama editing, and just an additional point which you probably already know but should be emphasized (it was also mentioned in an edit summary). This remedy from the original ArbCom case is still in effect obviously, so given this edit a few hours ago you now cannot revert on Presidency of Barack Obama for one week. Like the general WP:3RR rule, the 1RR per week is a "bright line" you cannot cross but should not be viewed as an "entitlement." That is, you should not be counting down the minutes to the point where you can revert again and then "undo" an edit 10 minutes after one week has passed since your last revert. The whole point of the restriction is obviously to limit edit-warring, and a kind of "slow-burn" edit warring is also a problem.
Obviously as you know the key is to get consensus for any additions or deletions you are proposing on the article talk page as that makes reverting at all unnecessary. Best of luck. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

"Luck" isn't really needed to stay out of trouble in WP, just an understanding of reasonable writing. Both this change of yours to Charles B. Rangel and this change of yours to Kevin Jennings had some usable parts in them, but were done in blatantly unsuitable ways (creation of unwarranted sections, excessive quoting without useful context, not tracking the source material well, etc.). If you look at my revisions of what you did, you can see the difference between an edit that will stay in an article and an edit that will get kicked out. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Bigtimepeace, thanks for the reminder about the 1 RR restriction. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Wasted Time R, thanks for editing that stuff instead of erasing it. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


I left a comment. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Voluntary break from editing political articles

Starting right now, I am taking a voluntary break from editing all political articles for the next 96 hours. I am doing this as a gesture of good will. Grundle2600 (talk) 02:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Grundle, I appreciate your willingness to take a step back. I have withdrawn the arbitration enforcement request. Hopefully though, you understand what caused me to initiate it in the first place. My thoughts are explained there. Let me know if you have any questions, about that, about editing, anything. Have a good day. Grsz11 14:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. And yes, I do understand. You have a good day too! Grundle2600 (talk) 20:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Time's up! Grundle2600 (talk) 20:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back. Thanks for the postcards :) - Wikidemon (talk) 20:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! Grundle2600 (talk) 20:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Peak oil

Please keep your edits on topic. This edit uses a paper on Hydrogen production as its source. It is not about unconventional petroleum production. 69.127.18.249 (talk) 02:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

On page 4 of the paper it says, "We have developed Green Freedom concepts for evaluation specifically for production of methanol and gasoline." Grundle2600 (talk) 20:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

tea party protests

hi, Grundle. the Christian Science Monitor article you refer to on the talk page doesn't seem to mention the time-lapse video at all. did some other RS claim it was bogus? thanks. Kenatipo (talk) 19:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh wow! They changed it! Originally, it had a reference to some time lapse photography. Now it just has one photo. Grundle2600 (talk) 03:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
i believe you. they should really document and archive changes they make to their articles. the Daily Mail did the same thing -- their first headline said "up to 2 million" marched on 9/12. then they downgraded it to 1 million and the previous headline just evaporated. Kenatipo (talk) 15:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


the Christian Science Monitor did the right thing, though. there's nothing fake about the time-lapse video. it's from the Westwood One camera on top of the Willard Hotel at 14th and E Sts, NW, viewable on TrafficLand.com. the original version of the time-lapse video is by YouTube user N37BU6 and Glenn Beck linked it to his website. the camera doesn't always look down Pennsylvania Avenue toward the Capitol as it did on 9-12. i've seen it aimed south down 14th St or focussed on the Jefferson Memorial or on the base of the Washington Monument. NBC Nightly News used video from this camera (showing Penn Ave filled with marchers from 14th St to the Capitol) on their broadcast that evening, just after their reporter Tom Costello says "our people think there were hundreds of thousands of people here today." Kenatipo (talk) 15:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
It's too bad the police stopped making crowd size estimates. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Gerald Walpin article

Just don't. For your own good, don't try to "game" the system.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

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. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Since you're spreading your comments around you give me no choice to do the same. As I replied at my talk page. "That is your interpretation. I try to stick to the facts." Best, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I will comment about this on your talk page. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Political positions of Barack Obama

Which part of this comment do you not understand?The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

My restriction says I have to comment. It doesn't say I need any specific response to my comments. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
No. You have to discuss, not just comment on any reversion of content at Obama related articles (and else, which you already acknowledged at my talk page).The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
And more importantly, you need consensus to make contentious edits. Since you have none (in fact quite the opposite, your proposals have met with widespread disagreement), your unilateral changes to the article are considered edit-warring (of the "slow-burn" variety). Remember, other editors do not need to convince you why you shouldn't add something. You need to convince other editors why you should add it. --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Magnificent Clean-keeper, there is an extensive discussion, with multiple participants, here. Newross said the quote was taken out of context. I asked him, multiple times, what the actual meaning of the quote was. But he never answered. The source, Politico, is a legitimate source. I have addressed every concern that was raised over the quote. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Whether you agree with it or not, you have no consensus to edit in the way you did. --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Loonymonkey, when you erased the quote, you commented that the quote was "ridiculously misleading." But here on the article's talk page, Newross said the quote was taken out of context. I asked him, multiple times, what the actual meaning of the quote was. But he never answered. Your comment that the quote is "ridiculously misleading" is the same as Newross's comment that the quote was out of context. Netiher of you has explained how the quote was out of context, or "ridiculously misleading." The text of the quote was published by Politico, a reliable source. It's a verifiable fact that Obama said that quote. It should be put back in the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
  • One more time: You need to discuss content reversions (and this was in there before) and not just "comment on it". Do you understand the difference? If not I, myself or someone else might be willing to waste some time explaining it to you. I thought you do understand the difference when I mentioned it above. Was I wrong?The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I did discuss it, quite a bit, for quite some time, with other editors, right here. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Oops!

With this edit and this edit it's possible that I may have reverted the same Obama related article twice in a week, in violation of my restriction. The original objection to the material that I added was that it was synthesis. So I thought that if I added the two things into separate sections of the article, there was no possibility that it could be synthesis. Also, I didn't check to see when my last revert was. As a gesture of good will, I will avoid editing that article for the rest of October 2009, based on the standard time that's kept in England. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Grundle. Oops doesn't do it and wp:AGF is exhausted in your case. What you need to do is obey the ArbCom decision by all means.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you that Oops doesn't undo my mistake. But that's what it was - a mistake. I did not mean to violate the ruling. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Grundle. It is so easy not to make any editing mistakes as you did just today. Check (your and) the article's page edit history and you'll find out what took me seconds. If you don't do so, there will be no excuse anymore and one or more editors will report it to the appropriate board (and you won't be in the position to blame them if they do so).The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you that I should have checked. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
OK. I will keep checking. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

After ec: I meant "start and keep on checking"; But you get the basis of my thoughs, I guess.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, right. Look - there is one thing that we both agree on, and that's that I don't want to get blocked or banned or restricted again. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Right, and besides that, if in doubt (regarding edits), ask Wikidemon who seems to "love you" :)) S/he is a pretty good editor you can ask for advise (on or off Wiki).The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Wikidemon seems very fair and reasonable. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Besides what I mentioned above, yes, I agree.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Earth attacks

I read an article in today's paper about the missile we're sending to the moon. Should there be a moon attack or moon missile attack article? I wonder if there is an article on this subject and what the actual name is...?

I don't think any creatures living in crater Cabeus are going to be pleased (and apparently they haven't seen the sun in billions of years). Hopefully they won't fire anything back.

Space dust is supposed to show up for about 60 seconds on Friday. Keep an eye out. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me. There's already an article about it - LCROSS. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

That Huge Edit

You know better than that, after all this time. Many, including myself, have been patient with you, but that patience is wearing thin. PhGustaf (talk) 23:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I discussed my proposed changes extensively on the talk page before I made them. The article was horribly out of date, and needed multiple updates. If I had made several small consecutive edits instead of one large edit, how would that have been any different? Grundle2600 (talk) 01:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
You didn't get anything close to consensus on any of them. My edit summary of "nope" was more polite than the "same old shit" I considered. The lapse of your topic ban doesn't give you license to recycle all the stuff that got you banned in the first place. I have tried to give you helpful advice (and wikidemon has been a wikisaint), but patience does run out. PhGustaf (talk) 03:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
There was consensus to have a single sentence about Van Jones resigning after it was revealed that he was a self described "communist" who blamed the 9-11 attacks on the U.S. government. Please explain why you think the article should mention Obama's actions against offshore drilling, but not his actions in favor of offshore drilling. Also please explain why you think citing one of those things without simultaneously citing the other does not violate NPOV, which states, "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors." How is it not noteworthy that Obama's choice to head the "Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools" has an extensive history of illegal drug use, and avoided reporting the statutory rape of a 15 year old student? If there's going to be a section on Obama's claims of transparency, why shouldn't the section mention cases where Obama was heavily non-transparent? How is Obama's nationalization of General Motors, and firing of its CEO, not notable? How is the questioning of the constitutionality of Obama's czars by two different Senators from Obama's own party not relevant to the section on those czars? Grundle2600 (talk) 10:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


Trolling

I cannot honestly believe that this [1] was a good faith edit intended to improve Wikipedia as opposed to vandalism ot trolling. Please don't. The article has been discussed at length on the talk page [2] as I am sure you are aware. --BozMo talk 11:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The BBC says that global warming ended in 1998. The BBC is a highly reliable source. Oh, sure, the computer models disagree with the BBC. But the BBC info is based on real world temperature measurements, whereas the computer models are based on someone's imagination. Grundle2600 (talk) 11:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
No, it does not. You have had one polite request now this is a serious warning. Do that again and you will get blocked. That exact report cited has been discussed at considerable length on the talk page of the article [3]. You are causing trouble with no good intention --BozMo talk 11:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Or just stick to editing politics articles for which BBC is a reliable source  :) Count Iblis (talk) 13:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration ammendment request.

Based on your behavior recently at Presidency of Barack Obama, I have filed a request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment to deal with the tendentious, WP:POINT-making violation seen in this edit: [4]. --Jayron32 03:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I have responded there. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Taken to ANI. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Presidency of Barack Obama article; (but also others)

So what are you going to do now? Edit-war and reinstate those rejected edits again a third time (while of course waiting a week before doing so to comply with your ArbCom restrictions), or will you at least try to really discuss those edits and hold yourself back if they are (again/still) rejected? Remember what user:Bigtimepeace said above[5]? Best, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I added the info because no one answered my questions on the talk page for the previous week, and because saying "nope" is not a legitimate reason to erase the content. Also, NPOV states, "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors." Grundle2600 (talk) 01:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh gosh. Same old answer that just doesn't fit.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 15:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Ron Paul article('s)

Assuming that it is true that you're a Ron Paul "fan" and voted for him in the last election [you said this a while ago on several occasions], I'm wondering why you didn't edited his article ever. Why not? If true, you surely know plenty about him and working on his WP entry certainly could add to the article and your reputation in a positive way, I guess.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 16:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

That is an excellent question. I did write Ron Paul in for President last November. I agree with him on most issues, with the biggest difference being that I favor universal health care and he opposes it. Your question is a very good one, and I don't know if I have an answer for it. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, well, well. That was the most honest answer I did get from you, ever. Thanks. The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome. And thanks. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome too, but if you ever have a comprehensive answer please let me know ;) . Best, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Some advise that you won't take but I'll give it to you anyways...

Grundle. I (still) think you're mostly a good faith editor who just doesn't understand our policies and guidelines even so you're here for a very long time but as long as you don't "get" the bases of how it works you're on the "loosing string". I don't think you will ever understand and be able to contribute in a way to improve WP to really "make it better". I think I've made my point clear on my talk page a little while ago (and even so I wasn't very polite then, for which I apologize, it was the truth as far as I saw it and are still seeing it). Cut out repeating your point endlessly as it does only work against you. You should rather start thinking about what you might have done wrong or presented in a bad way. Don't go on with thinking that you're right and therefore everyone else must be wrong. You're "fighting" against alleged bias with bias; That won't work. Best, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. I very strongly disagree with your claim that I have never made the encyclopedia better. I have edited many, many non-Obama related articles, including many political articles, as well as many articles on science, technology, and pop culture, where there was never any substantial controversy over my edits. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Grundle, don't get me wrong. I was talking about politics related articles (especially Obama related ones but not only). I've never said (and can't even imagine to say such in the future) that you're not an helpful editor on non-politics-related pages. I've edited some of your edits in the past on such pages. To clarify, you made some useful edits to this encyclopedia on articles that are not related to any politics and political views.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying that. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Topic ban

I regret to inform you, but, per consensus established here, you are now subject to the below terms.

Grundle2600 is subject to an indefinite topic ban - he is prohibited from editing any pages relating to US politics or politicians. The ban will be enforced by escalating blocks.

As an uninvolved administrator, I remind you that the ban is binding, and violating the terms will result in escalating blocks. However, you're still free to edit other areas of the encyclopedia, and I encourage you to do so - you're certainly a productive editor, and it would sadden me (as I'm sure it would others) if you were to leave the project.

Also, if you'd like, I could be at your disposal to mentor you. I'd love to help out, but only with your permission.

I hope to talk to you in the future, Master of Puppets 08:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me. And yes, you have my permission to offer me advice any time you want - thanks. Grundle2600 (talk) 11:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Just to give you some clarification on how mentorship works, as you can't expect user:Master of Puppets to watch all of your edits. If you have any question about an edit or else you can contact Master of Puppets for advise. Best, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 17:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Right. That's what I figured. Thanks for telling me. Besides, when I want someone to watch all my edits, it's you whom I look to to do that! Grundle2600 (talk) 17:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
To the latter: Yes, Grundle, I would be at least one of them :)) . Thanks for the laugh, I needed it.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 17:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome! Grundle2600 (talk) 18:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Ditto.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow! Google sure works quickly! Grundle2600 (talk) 03:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations Grundle. You tried to play us all along that you were just trying to help, but now your true intentions are evident. It's a shame really. Grsz11 04:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
If there had ever been an assumption of good faith on the part of you and the others hounding Grundle, your statement might be taken seriously. As it is you just come across as petty for once again assuming that Grundle had an ulterior motive when he was open and honest all the way along about the content he thought should be included in order to comply with our core NPOV policy. That you would make such a nasty statement towards an editor who has just been banned from editing a subject area they are clearly interested in and one that they've made major contributions toward (including the creation of numerous articles on critical subjects) is pretty disgusting. For someone who took umbrage and expressed outrage at once having their comment copy-edited, your vicious attack really shows an awful lack of class. Shame on you Grsz. I expected better. Are you so lacking in compassion that you're incapable of imagining that Grundle simply posted to an outlet outside of Wikipedia because he was upset? Wouldn't it make sense that he feels wronged after being censored by a pack of POV pushing editors whose only objection was that they disagreed with the content he thought should be included in our articles? ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Grsz, I believe that the Obama articles should cite the good and the bad about him. I have never, ever erased anything that was relevant and well sourced. I believe that the good and the bad should be included in the articles. Grundle2600 (talk) 10:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Grsz (and anyone else who has an interest in my topic ban), I posted that at two different websites - Free Republic and DVD Talk. Anywhere else that they appear is because someone else copied it. I hope it appears at at least 100 different websites by the end of this month. I also contacted Matt Drudge with the title and link of my posting at Free Republic. Those message boards have open registration. Please feel free to register at those boards and post your comments. Grundle2600 (talk) 11:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Grundle, it's easy for CoM just to ramble, but you and I both know we have worked collaboratively in the past. I had no opinion on a topic ban, I simply stressed that you needed to understand what the issue was. But now it really seems as if you've forced this situation just to get some attention from this right-wing nuts. And all that does is retroactively justify the situation, even if it weren't in the first place. Grsz11 15:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Grsz, I'm aware that you didn't vote for or against my topic ban. But you have erased a substantial amount of my contributions. I just think that when people hear opinions they don't like, the solution is to have more speech, not less speech. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
While it is usually true that "more speech" is preferable, it depends on how it is presented. Unfortunately, despite the efforts of many Wikipedians to show you the problem, you have remained largely incapable of making your politics-related edits in a balanced manner. I am certain that you will be able to contribute productively to other areas of Wikipedia, as I have being doing since being given a similar ban. Remember also that "indefinite" does not necessarily mean "forever". Perhaps you will be able to return to this arena at some future point if you can show that you have been following a path that benefits Wikipedia, rather than an agenda. I would also recommend, in the strongest possible terms, that you cease taking advice (and ludicrous plaudits) from other highly agenda-driven editors who derive pleasure from seeking drama. They are not helping your cause. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you that there is lots of other stuff that both of us are good at editing. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Nobel Barnstar for Liberty and Integrity

The Barnstar of Liberty

I hereby award you the Nobel Barnstar for Liberty and Integrity. Despite incessant provocation and harassment from the most abusive policy violating POV pushers, you maintained your calm and kept your focus on article content issues. Given your persistence and the long odds that came with your being greatly outnumbered, the outcome was predictable. Yet your refusal to renounce fundamental liberties of expression and your unwillingness to give in to the hideous pack of snarling beasts that stood against you will always stand as an inspiration to Wikipedians who value fairness, inclusiveness and truth. Kudos. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Grundle2600 (talk) 03:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

You're very welcome. As far as I know you are the first ever recipient of this award, so it is a historic moment unparalleled in the history of Wikipedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree. This is the most notable thing that has ever happened here. It deserves its own article. Grundle2600 (talk) 03:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely! And I look forward to working with you on the encyclopedia going forward and to discussing many interesting subjects that aren't political with you. Of course I'm dismayed at your being unjustly censored from discussing political subjects. I think your approach could have been more incremental, but there's no question in my mind about your good faith and dedication to the encyclopedia, as demonstrated by your many susbtantial article contributions. I admire your willingness to continue discussing article issues that interested you no matter how many times you were smeared, personally attacked, and harassed. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. I also look forward to working with you. Grundle2600 (talk) 10:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Questions for my mentor (and anyone else who's interested) about my topic ban.

During the discussion and enaction of my topic ban, User:Master of Puppets offered to be my mentor. Even though my topic ban has been enacted, these seven questions that I asked about Presidency of Barack Obama during the discussion of my proposed topic ban have not been answered. To Master of Puppets, and anyone else who is interested, please answer these questions. Thank you.

1) There was talk page consensus to have a single sentence about Van Jones resigning after it was revealed that he was a self described "communist" who blamed the 9-11 attacks on the U.S. government. Why should I be punished for adding that info to the article?

2) Please explain why you think the article should mention Obama's actions against offshore drilling, but not his actions in favor of offshore drilling.

3) Also please explain why you think citing Obama's actions against offshore drilling, without simultaneously citing his actions in favor of offshore drilling, does not violate NPOV, which states, "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors."

4) How is it not noteworthy that Obama's choice to head the "Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools" has an extensive history of illegal drug use?

5) If there's going to be a section on Obama's claims of transparency, why shouldn't the section mention cases where Obama was heavily non-transparent?

6) How is Obama's nationalization of General Motors, and firing of its CEO, not notable to the section on Obama's economic policy?

7) How is the questioning of the constitutionality of Obama's czars by two different Senators from Obama's own party, not relevant to the section on those czars?

Grundle2600 (talk) 13:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Let me put this as politely as I can; your input into political articles is no longer valued or desired by the Wikipedia community, hence the indefinite topic ban. Posting this same insipid list in every forum you have touched in the last few weeks is wearisome and unproductive, especially as some (if not all) were addressed by grsz at one time already. That they were not answered to your specific and particular liking is just, I'm dunno, too bad.
Advice? Walk away. Go help ChildofMidnight write better bacon articles, or find a nice non-political corner of the Wikipedia and settle into it. Surely you have other interests or hobbies that your energy could be directed towards. Tarc (talk) 13:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
That is not an answer to my questions. Grundle2600 (talk) 13:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Some were answered; others that weren't were likely deemed irrelevant, given your past tendentious track record of such things. Sorry to be blunt, but that's the joy of a topic ban; no one has to deal with this anymore. I'll be unwatching this lately today, pending further replies, so unless you have an interest in grunge or 80's/early 90's alternative, here is where we part ways. Take care. Tarc (talk) 14:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I created a section to discuss my 100 favorite albums on this very talk page. Perhaps you might be interested in that discussion. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, 1 out of 100 at least; the pre-sellout Liz Phair. Tarc (talk) 15:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Whoo hoo! Grundle2600 (talk) 15:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I'd answer those, but they're fairly loaded. Also, as your mentor I'm supposed to help you get a better understanding of policy and help make the editing process as painless as possible; I don't have the power to change the opinion of others. If, as Tarc says, people have already weighed in on this and they've had their final word, then I can't do anything about it. I can urge them to reconsider, but they don't have to do that.
However, I could try to work through a few of these with you. For example, the last one (about the czars); are there any reliable sources questioning their constitutionality? Master of Puppets 04:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Although Tarc claims that my questions have been answered, he has not cited any quotes of or links to those alleged answers.
My questions are not "loaded." They are legitimate questions.
Of course I cited reliable sources when I added the info to the article. This is the edit where I added the info about the czars. Here is what I added: "In February 2009, U.S. Senator Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia) expressed concern that Obama's czars might violate the U.S. Constitution, because they were not approved by the U.S. Senate.[1] U.S. Senator Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin) expressed a similar concern in September 2009.[2]"
  1. ^ Byrd: Obama in power grab, Politico, February 5, 2009
  2. ^ Feingold questions Obama 'czars', thehill.com, September 16, 2009
Grundle2600 (talk) 12:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Answers

  1. Because your input into political articles was determined to be a net-negative to such an extreme level that the cost of vetting edits you make that are ok is more than the value of the edits.
  2. I have never edited the aritcle you discuss, but I know that your input into political articles was determined to be a net-negative to such an extreme level that the cost of vetting edits you make that are ok is more than the value of the edits. What you construe as people disagreeing with your points is actually them ignoring them.
  3. I have never edited the aritcle you discuss, but I know that your input into political articles was determined to be a net-negative to such an extreme level that the cost of vetting edits you make that are ok is more than the value of the edits. What you construe as people disagreeing with your points is actually them ignoring them.
  4. I have never edited the aritcle you discuss, but I know that your input into political articles was determined to be a net-negative to such an extreme level that the cost of vetting edits you make that are ok is more than the value of the edits. What you construe as people disagreeing with your points is actually them ignoring them.
  5. I have never edited the aritcle you discuss, but I know that your input into political articles was determined to be a net-negative to such an extreme level that the cost of vetting edits you make that are ok is more than the value of the edits. What you construe as people disagreeing with your points is actually them ignoring them.
  6. I have never edited the aritcle you discuss, but I know that your input into political articles was determined to be a net-negative to such an extreme level that the cost of vetting edits you make that are ok is more than the value of the edits. What you construe as people disagreeing with your points is actually them ignoring them.
  7. I have never edited the aritcle you discuss, but I know that your input into political articles was determined to be a net-negative to such an extreme level that the cost of vetting edits you make that are ok is more than the value of the edits. What you construe as people disagreeing with your points is actually them ignoring them.
Sincerely. Hipocrite (talk) 13:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
You did not answer my questions. My questions were about the content of the article, not about the person who added the content to the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 13:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
But I did answer your questions. Your premise in every one of them was flawed. You assumed that
Q2 "you think"
Q3 "you think"
Q4 you imply that I think something is or is not noteworthy.
Q5 you imply that I care about some section in some article.
Q6 you imply that I think something is important in some article.
Q7 you imply that I think something is relevent.
I don't. It's pretty clear to me that my only opinion is that you are incredibly disruptive, and you're not going to stop it. The reason you can't get any changes in articles (that's your real question), is that you are so transparently trying to make articles reflect what you think they should reflect, as opposed to what reliable sources say. Hipocrite (talk) 13:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Please cite an example of where what I added to the article, was different than what the reliable source said. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I was invited on my talk page to post here because I commented at the ANI discussion. The only thing I know about Grundle2600's work is what I said at the ANI, namely that the first few diffs cited in evidence showed a tenacious desire to inject POV, but what persuaded me to comment was this discussion where an interesting and detailed response was provided regarding some questions of a similar nature to those posed at the top of this section. Grundle2600 totally ignored the response and raised another issue, then capped it off by saying "You have not answered my questions". That kind of discussion goes on all the time in endless political forums, but it simply is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Articles should record notable information that is likely to be helpful even when read in a few year's time; articles are not a place to hold all the factoids with a negative association that original research can dream up. And the reason I have not attempted to answer the questions above is that that is not the purpose of Wikipedia. We cannot satisfy every participant in a debate. Johnuniq (talk) 22:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The discussion that you linked to, which I started, is called, "Why is it OK for the article to cite Obama's actions against offshore drilling, but not his actions in favor of offshore drilling?" That is a very legitimate question. NPOV states, "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors." Therefore, for the article to cite Obama's actions against offshore drilling, without simultaneously citing his actions in favor of offshore drilling, violates NPOV. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I just wandered in here by following a link you posted on someone else's talk page. You may recall we interacted once before several months ago. That conversation was considered humorous enough to be listed here. You seem to feel that the community owes you answers to the questions you pose above. It does not. You have been told in the plainest possible language that the problems around your editing of political articles outweigh any benefit you may have had on those articles. This topic ban is a not-so-subtle hint to you that you need to let it go and move on to something else.

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Now drop it already, you're not going to get what you want by continuing to pursue this, it can only make things worse. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

    • Wow! I am honored that our conversation was listed there. Anyway, I understand about picking your battles, letting things go, beating a dead horse, etc. But at least I had to try. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Although, a penny saved is a penny earned.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I was trying to make a joke too! Grundle2600 (talk) 03:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Oops, sorry. Then I have to work on my sense of humor, I guess. :)) The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I am done discussing this subject

I am done discussing this subject. Grundle2600 (talk) 02:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10→Archive 15
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Grundle2600/Archive_8&oldid=1143033915"