Jump to content

User talk:LedRush/Archive001

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Easy Access to Sub-pages

Bucknell pong

It's a variant of Beer pong, and therefore belongs, if anywhere, as a section in that article rather than on its own. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 19:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

      • Well, I didn't delete -- I redirected. That's different, because your original content is still available to everyone. May I suggest, if you want to take this on, that you rewrite the Beer pong (paddles) article to cover both the Dartmouth and Bucknell versions (moving the principal content from both into the generic article), and then redirect the Dartmouth article to the Paddles article as well. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion

  1. I've moved the contents here for you.
  2. If reliable sources show up, you can list the article at deletion review.-Wafulz (talk) 14:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
There were a few problems with your sources and the article:
  • The article was 50% history of beer pong, and 50% unsourced rules. This shows that all of the sources you had dealt with beer pong in general, and none with Bucknell Pong. If your article was about the history of beer pong, then you'd have a stronger case.
  • As far as I can see, none of your sources actually use the name "Bucknell Pong." I can't access prestonandsteve because of a firewall right now, but according to the discussion, it cites Wikipedia, which means it's not reliable.
Unfortunately, until the game becomes widespread, consistent, and well-sourced, by Wikipedia standards it's just a minor variation of a more common game.-Wafulz (talk) 17:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


Blocked

You have been blocked for edit warring on the People's Republic of China article, per the report at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR. Please note that other editors breaking the policy is not an exception for your own edit warring. Kuru talk 03:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be easy enough to prove that I am not a sock puppet based on my past contributions. Also, I think it is clear that my effort to mediate Laomei's dispute resulted in a NPOV that melded both the conflicting ideas into one good passage. While I believed I was not in violation of the 3RR, upon more careful examination of the rule I may have been and should have reported Laomei's numerous reverts earlier rather than attempt to reason with him and trying to ensure the integrity of the article. For that I am sorry. However, I had never reported anyone before and was certain that dialog and good faith would result in a good outcome. I have been in heated disagreements before (Alex Bell, xbox 360), but reason, patience, and good faith always resulted in a good solution. I am still willing to talk with Laomei and make the article as good as possible if he will desist with his personal attacks on me and my character.

I do think that the punishment for this violation is rather harsh under the circumstances.LedRush (talk) 03:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm certainly willing to unblock if you'll commit to limiting yourself to the article's talk page only for 24 hours to work on a resolution. Kuru talk 04:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely. I will not edit the article itself and my contributions on the talk page will be in pursuit of a resolution beneficial to all sides.LedRush (talk) 04:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks; I've cleared the block and the autoblock. Please let me know if there are technical problems with your editing and good luck. Kuru talk 04:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


Your rollback request

Hi! I regret that I must inform you that your request for the rollback permission has been denied. You can discover why by checking the archives at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Denied/September 2008#LedRush. SoxBot X (talk) 22:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

By the way, there's a reason this is no big deal. See Wikipedia:Popups - You can do about half of what rollbacks do, and get a much nicer interface besides. Happy editing, MrZaiustalk 16:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

An Unfortunately Improper Warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on One-China policy. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Green caterpillar (talk) 22:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello. :) In response to unwillingness to stop edit warring and because of recent disregard for warnings, I have filed a Wikiquette alert here. You're welcome to comment, but please do not remove comments. I'm trying to assume good faith about you helping the encyclopedia, and I do not wish this to escalate. Green caterpillar (talk) 19:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I am a little unclear about these accusations here, so I'll take them one at a time:
1: Regarding edit warring, there was one person who argued against existing language that was generally agreed on by about 3 others. While none of us reverted 3 times in 24 hours, we did try to preserve the page while the discussion was going on. I offered mediation, I offered compromise, and I asked people on the USA talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:United_States) to come over and help with the US-related question. The manner in which I introduced the issue was neutral so that they could make up their own mind. One person, Mrzaius, with whom I have had some disagreement before, went over there and agreed with my position. Without getting into the merits of the discussion, I feel that my process was polite and appropriate. I repeatedly tried to find middle ground, I tried to find out why the person wanted the language so badly so that we could get examples which more accurately reflected his belief, and when this went on for two days I asked neutral outsiders (in a neutral way) to help us work out compromise. This issue was resolved 3 or 4 days ago, and I don't know why Green Caterpillar is bringing this up now.
2: I deleted the edit warring warning from my page (which I called a possible mistake or possible vandalism...never did I call it vandalism) because I thought it was a mistake. I hadn't made any edits to the page in about 3 days so I didn't know why I was getting the warning. If you aren't allowed to remove warnings, even ones that you reasonably believe are made in error, I am sorry. I was unaware that Wikipedia had such a rule and I will revert that on my talk page.
3: I also want to question some of Green Caterpillars comments themselves. He claims that I disregarded warnings on my talk page. This is untrue in two respects. Firstly, I only received one warning. Secondly, that warning was made about 3 days after my last edit, and therefore I couldn't have ignored it.
Green Caterpillar also claims that I deleted comments (plural) from my talk page. That is untrue. I deleted one on my talk page because it was made about 3 days after my last edit and I thought it was made in error.LedRush (talk) 21:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

You can view the edit history here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=One-China_policy&action=history and see that I never even edited more than once a day as a few people disagreed with one, who broke the 3RR and railed against consensus. LedRush (talk) 17:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I advised the user one how to deal with vexatious warnings in the future, and not in this case. As such, I am forced to refute this.
There is a difference between an EDIT WAR and a 3 Revert Rule violation. The warning you were rightly provided was about an Edit War, the the polite caution that you might get close to a 3RR. A mild attempt to discuss does not a discussion make.
  • From WP:EW: "An edit war occurs when individual editors or groups of editors repeatedly revert each other's edits to a page or subject area. Deliberate engagement in edit warring instead of discussion is a breach of Wikiquette and may cause user blocks from editing. Attempts to win disputes through brute force undermine the consensus-building process that underlies the ideal wiki collaborative spirit."
  • From WP:3RR "Contributors must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period, whether or not the edits involve the same material, except in certain circumstances. A revert is any action, including administrative actions, that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part. Consecutive reverts by one user with no intervening edits by another user count as one revert"
From the editing history, these actions all took place in a row:
  • 12:52, 27 September 2008 - LedRush (Undid revision 241334495)
  • 14:38, 27 September 2008 Redking7 (Undid revision 241350169)
  • 21:04, 27 September 2008 LedRush (Undid revision 24136868)
  • 07:10, 28 September 2008 Redking7 (an edit)
  • 17:47, 28 September 2008 LedRush (Undid revision 241511469)
  • 17:32, 29 September 2008 Redking7 (an edit)
  • 17:58, 29 September 2008 LedRush (Undid revision 241865967)
Although these edits take place over 2 days, 5 hours, it's the veritable definition of an edit war. With 3 reversions by LedRush at 17:47 and 21:04 on the 27th, and 12:52 on the 28th, that's 3 reversions in less than 24 hours...which means the NEXT reversion would be an actual 3RR violation. The warning (although 3 days late) was valid. BMW(drive) 18:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't believe that BMW is correctly reading the warning or accurately reflecting what happened. Firstly, the warning said:

"You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war"

Of course, the warning was given about 3 days after my last edit and about 5 days after the time I made 3 changes in 24 hours.

"Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period."

I never broke this rule, and there are exceptions for disruptive postings.

"If you continue, you may be blocked from editing."

I had already stopped the editing as the consensus was accepted (the very consensus that I worked towards with requests for third party help and offers of compromise). My edits were the consensus. Because I hadn't made any recent edits, there was nothing I could "continue" and therefore no reason for the warning

"Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors."

As demonstrated above, I had worked on the talk page with a group of editors on a compromise position which was enacted, again, making the warning not only unnecessary, but improper.LedRush (talk) 18:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Gosh, I'll try not to become uncivil:
  • Did you "repeatedly revert each other's edits to a page"? Yes. That WAS therefore edit warring.
It does not matter when it happened, you merely received a POLITE, level 1 warning that it happened, so that you would be aware of policy, just in case you didn't already know. Takes more than a level 1 to get you blocked. As 3RR is related to edit warring, the template made you aware of that just in case it got that far. As I noted, you did not quite get to 3RR, but it was close. Please learn the difference between warning levels here. BMW(drive) 19:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
So, 4 out of the 5 comments in the warning clearly don't apply to the situation. One comment refers to something 3 days old and is acceptable under certain circumstances, for example when correcting disruptive postings and vandalism. That, combined with the information above and below, makes the warning clearly improper, IMHO.LedRush (talk) 20:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
The warning was not polite for the reasons stated above (late, unnecessary) nor was taking this to wikiquette based on false accusations (or disregarding the warning, which I didn't do). I know the difference between the warnings and would appreciate it if you didn't condescend to me when I have proven the knowledge above. I have showed above that the warning was full of statements which obviously didn't relate to my situation and was therefor improper.LedRush (talk) 19:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

BMW, thank you for acknowledging here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:LedRush that the Green Caterpillar's filing of a wikiquette alert against me was improper. I guess we'll agree to disagree regarding edit warring.LedRush (talk) 19:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

a note

just looking quickly, it doesn't surprise me that mr. fletcher has made an appearance. check this out.--Asdfg12345 13:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

That is unfortunate. On the bright side, we have a reliable sourse that Mr. Fletcher engages in the "deliberate spreading of false or misleading facts to sow confusion". I've really tried to assume good faith with him, but you can tell that he's going to tuck his head down and ram his head into the wall until he gets his way, without compromise (which I've offered to him so many times).LedRush (talk) 14:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Talk: Barack Obama

Hiya LedRush. I don't quite understand your ..are you afraid... question at that article's talk-page; needs clarification. GoodDay (talk) 21:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'll try to be more clear.LedRush (talk) 21:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm concerned about IPs & newbies with questionable motives on the John McCain, Barack Obama, Joe Biden & Sarah Palin articles. GoodDay (talk) 21:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for taking the time to answer directly.LedRush (talk) 21:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
No prob. GoodDay (talk) 21:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Nay! I'm not offended, never was. GoodDay (talk) 21:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Btw. I know editors on the Obama article (as with other topics) can be a bit jumpy and sensitive. It's been subject to a lot of contention (and in fact, a lot of bad faith editors), as you've gathered. However, I want to emphasize that I take your question/suggestion of a See Also section as completely good faith, and not as related to just one specific item that might be listed in such a section. I think I've articulated well enough why I would not want such a section; at the same time, I did not think any comment you made there was impolite or unreasonable. The discussion was helpful, I believe. Thanks, LotLE×talk 21:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. After Wikidemon's comments I became a little concerned. I know that the discussion was very helpful for me to see how the other editors there are thinking.LedRush (talk) 22:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Age falsification in gymnastics -- two things

Thanks for your support in the rewriting of a section of that article! Bobby Fletcher is at it again, having already reverted me once, but there seem to be enough people in favor of the new version that I think we can keep it.

Also, I just posted a new message at the talk page proposing a possible move, so once you get a chance, let me know what you think. Thanks again! —Politizer( talk • contribs ) 22:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey, just to let you know, User:Bobby fletcher has also been making a bunch of posts at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China; as he hasn't edited the actual article yet today I'm going to lay off for now, but if he starts edit warring or doing anything else to escalate this I think I'm going to start an RfC on either the article or him. —Politizer( talk • contribs ) 21:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Another update...I just reported Bobby fletcher at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR.—Politizer( talk • contribs ) 00:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Huangshan

No problem...I just stumbled across it and, since I have hiked there and loved it, wanted to do my best to clean up the article. I still don't feel comfortable removing {{refimprove}}, as a lot of the refs (both the ones already in there, and the ones I've added) are from travel sites or things like that, and more neutral third-party refs would be preferable. I have a book at home that I should be able to check out when I go back in December, and maybe I'll be able to find some better sources in there. —Politizer( talk • contribs ) 15:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Excellent! Once we both have access to books and better sources, I think we could easily try to work this article towards GA status by beefing up the references already there and adding more information about Huangshan's tourism and significance. —Politizer( talk • contribs ) 15:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm in pretty much the same boat, I don't think I can do much more until I've gotten my paper source, as most of the stuff online is either iffy or has now been cited ad nauseum (by me) in the article already. But anyway, your edits have definitely been helpful, and having someone with your attention to detail will be a great asset whenever we get around to making more expansions.
As far as the names being locked together, I can't believe I totally forgot about that! My name is up there somewhere, too. I will definitely try to find a good source so that I can mention that whole thing in the article, because I'm pretty sure it's one of the things Huangshan is known for. —Politizer( talk • contribs ) 23:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Outcome of 3RR report on Bobby fletcher

Blocked for 24 hours. I'm sure he'll be back in these articles before long, but at least this precedent means that if he becomes disruptive again it will be easier to have him blocked or banned. Hopefully he'll realize that and tone down his editing.

On an unrelated note: thanks for your work cleaning up after me in Mount Huang! It's still far from GA standard, but I think there's a lot more we still do to it, and it's a significant enough place that it definitely deserves a more in-depth article than what we have so far...I'm looking forward to continuing working on this article. —Politizer( talk • contribs ) 22:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The Maplebrook School

Actually it was user "John Bot" who first assessed that article as a stub; that happened back in May. Although his assessment was for WP Schools, "class" assessments don't differ between projects (importance assessments do, of course). I did incorporate that level in my addition of this article to the New York State project instead of wehat I reallky should have done, which was a full reassessment. In reality I don't think the article was actually a stub back then, and it certainly isn't one now, so you don't really need to improve it further to change its class assessment. My recommendation is to be bold - change the class assessment to the level that you think is correct. Remember to change the parameters to both templates on the talk page and - this is also very important - remove the stub template that's on the mainspace page as well. Cheerio and happy editing! Merenta (talk) 23:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Rollbacker

I have granted your rollback request. Please make sure to remember its only for reverting blatant vandalism. If its questionable use undo. Remember this can be taken away just as easy as it was given. Good luck and good editing. -Djsasso (talk) 16:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Fastest growing economies

You seem like a constructive editor so I'd just like to illustrate my point further. Per CIA WFB: Most recent data available for real annual growth.

1 Azerbaijan 23.40 2007 est. 2 Bhutan 22.40 2007 est. 3 Timor-Leste 19.80 2007 est. 4 Angola 16.70 2007 est. 5 Macau 16.60 2006 Macau is a SAR of the PRC 6 Armenia 13.70 2007 est. 7 Equatorial Guinea 12.40 2007 est. 8 Georgia 12.00 2007 est. 9 China 11.90 2007 est.

As you can see, of the 7 recognized states that grew faster than China last year, all are not powers (not even middle powers) by any definition of the term. Therefore, there is really no argument to contest. Economics dictates that the larger the economy, the harder is it for it to grow at rapid rates, which makes China really remarkable in the context of rapid, sustained economic growth over the past 30 years. In fact, I'm not sure if you are aware but this has never been seen in human history before. Nirvana888 (talk) 02:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that as a matter of principle, I must disagree with you. Is it unfortunately not notable that China had the 8th fastest growing economy but that it is the fastest growing major economy. With some knowledge of economics, you should be very aware of this fact. You should realize that I am not trying to highlight China's growth but simply to present what would important for Wikipedia. The fact that China is the fastest growing major economy is clear and verifiable by many, many publications (including the one I provided). Simply put, it is important to have some common sense as there is no ambiguity and I am very surprised that you would have a problem if you have experience with economic analysis. For a comparison, see the lead in India, a FA, "Economic reforms have transformed it into the second fastest growing large economy;[16]" Should we note that India was the 22nd fastest growing economic? Obviously not. As you can see, my statement is even more clear, notable, verifiable, and unambigious in this context.Nirvana888 (talk) 15:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
I think we should revert back for now or at least reach a compromise. Do you have any issues with TastyCakes' proposal? It is less "absolute" if you will. Nirvana888 (talk) 16:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

PRC edits

No worries! I don't have any problem with how China is characterized in that sentence; I was just trying to bring the most relevant info to the forefront (relevant in the structure of the sentence, I mean). In my last edit I tried to do that without removing the list of the other 4 countries.

About the user page code: you are welcome to it! I don't know a lot of WP syntax either; most of the stuff on my userpage I just figured out through trial and error (lots of Show Preview clicks). Most of stuff I used can be found at Help:Columns, Template:Show, and Help:Tables. If you have any questions about how to get something working, feel free to ask (although I can't guarantee I'll know). —Politizer( talk • contribs ) 19:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

rountinely engaging in contentious edits?

I am at a loss as to why you would make such a comment about me, and honestly I'm feeling quite hurt. Last time we edited together I remembered that you were quite civil amd helpful. And I had quite a good impression about you. I understand that my interest of cross-strait issues is inherently a contentious subject and Im always happy to discuss with people. Did I edit something that upset you and you didn't let me know?--pyl (talk) 10:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. It was nice of you to clear things up for me.--pyl (talk) 05:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you.

.

Palin

Hi, I'm not quite sure I understand this edit of yours. Are you saying that the material in question (which I inserted and then subsequently removed) can be reinserted (by yourself) without any resolution at the talk page, even though it cannot be removed (by me) without any resolution at the talk page? Why is it that you're insisting I have no ability to revert myself? Insertion of the material was part of a compromise at the talk page, and the compriomise involved removal of the POV tag. Why do you think it's necessary to keep the material in the article even though the POV tag has now been reinserted?Ferrylodge (talk) 07:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Brave New Films

I just started this article tonight; since you seem to be involved in a lot of politics-related articles, I figured you might be interested. Best, —Politizer talk/contribs 05:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

hint

You might want to sign your edit at User talk:Murphdawg360 (which is, by the way, out of line after I gave him already a warning. 2 edits don't make an edit war yet) ;)--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

PRC

I don't see why I have to discuss with this particular user Asdfg12345 (talk · contribs) who is clearly a single purpose account hellbent in spreading FLG views and edits nothing but FLG articles. I've dealt with his edits throught the last two years, and he has even edited the CCP article claiming that the "Nine Commentaries" from the Epoch Times is a valid source. To state that the FLG ban is a "persecution" is clearly a violation of WP:NPOV and endorses a particular viewpoint, and I've worded it to "ban", a much more neutral wording that introduces the situation to readers clearly without stepping into too much controvsery.--PCPP (talk) 04:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I changed the wording in the article to hopefully come to a compromise on the "persecuted"/"banned" issue; my comments are here. —Politizer talk/contribs 22:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama & Joe Biden

Though I agree with calling them presumptive President-elect & presumptive Vice President-elect; I think fighting for those factual changes, might be too much a hassle. Afterall, Obama is actually bi-racial (African-American & Caucasian) & ya know getting that mentioned at the top of the article is a don't go there move. GoodDay (talk) 16:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

No prob. By the way, is there anybody out there, who can straigten CNN out. CNN has been going on about the Democrats controlly the 3 branches of government. I didn't know the Democrats controlled the Judiciary branch. I'm guessing CNN has somehow mistaking the House of Representatives & the Senate as seperate branches. GoodDay (talk) 19:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
GoodDay, what do you think of Obama's victory? Do you perceive him to be the knight in shining designer suit that everyone is making him out to be?--jeanne (talk) 05:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, LedRush, I mistakenly put a message to GoodDay on your talk page.My apologies. Cheers.--jeanne (talk) 06:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

about my comment

Hello, I wanted to clarify with you that I don't personally see bi-racial/multi-racial and African-American as mutually exclusive but I had a hard time getting that across with the Obama talk page. I don't think I'll participate in the discussion there anymore because I was only trying to help but it feels like people are only talking past each other. You might be interested to know that the same debate is occurring on other language Wikipedias too. That's enough of my rambling. LovesMacs (talk) 22:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm discouraged by the debate on the talk page and I don't know if I'll keep following it. I may leave a comment on the straw poll, but that will probably be it. Thank you for your encouragement, but that talk page is intimidating. LovesMacs (talk) 10:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Soul searching

I'm curious what you meant here. I made very few, very small comments. Please don't personally attack me again. Grsz11 →Review! 00:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I meant what I said. For a full discussion, you can visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:L%27Aquatique
Basically, I felt that your swears, incivility and misrepresentations or my opinions are against the spirit of wikipedia. If my opinion of you insults you, I apologize, for that is not my intent.LedRush (talk) 01:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Also I cant remember any attempt at representing your opinion. Show me if I am wrong. Grsz11 →Review! 01:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Obama talk page

Don't worry, I'm done with it. It's an endless loop, and I'm jumping off. There are plenty of other fish to fry here. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Talk:President-elect

You can check out my message there. I believe the text I removed was not substantially or directly related to the topic of the President-elect. Why not port the text over to the Electoral College article? Robert K S (talk) 05:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I've left another message on the article talk. Headed to bed myself; catch ya later. Night. Robert K S (talk) 05:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

re: Maplebrook School

Hey Ledrush,

I just noticed that going on in my watchlist this morning, and I didn't revert the IP right away because I do remember there being a lot of primary sources when I worked on cleaning up the article a couple months ago...but now that you mention it, I also remember the sources were mostly used to reference things where primary sources are totally acceptable, like what you mentioned. A similar article I wrote a couple months ago, Kenyon Athletic Center, uses a lot of primary sources (articles from the College's newspaper) and has never been criticized. I'll take a second look at Maplebrook School in a moment and see what I think.

By the way [this is totally unrelated], I should be home in about 10 days and then I'll hopefully be able to get my hands on that Huangshan book...it feels like forever since we were editing that article! I've been waiting months to get a look at that book and expand the article, so this should be lots of fun. Hope everything is well with you, —Politizer talk/contribs 15:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

He Kexin reverts

LedRush, there is a content dispute going on at He Kexin; one editor is reverting He's date of birth repeatedly. I started a discussion here. —Politizer talk/contribs 23:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

User Writegeist

Hi LedRush, it is nice that you try to deal with this user, but I would advise not feeding the trolls on this one. He really feeds off it and is why he is here. --Tom 20:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Example of his prose (concerning me) "Perhaps that submission was made under the wrong rule? The behaviour of the reptile in question falls outside the rule's narrow parameters. I used to think that given enough rope it would hang itself; now I've started to worry about running out of rope. Good of you to drop in!" "He (or she?) also drives with pig-headed disregard for other traffic here, where he continues to bend (OK ignore) all highway laws (worth filing as evidence). And looks to have quite a schoolgirl crush on a good old friend of the Nazis. " Thus reaching Godwin's Law all on his own <g>. "Yum! Chateau Comeuppance! Either this is a particularly fine vintage or the occasion it celebrates has imparted an especially spicy flavour. Thank you. And I think we have Saint Brendan the Bold to thank, at least in part, for this happy day? The quiet patience of a saint illuminating a manuscript; the tenacity of a terrier hunting a rat." Referring to what I presume is, in fact, a sock. More deathless prose on request. Collect (talk) 21:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Huangshan

Hey LedRush, I just added about 2500 characters and 8 refs to the Huangshan article and nominated it for GA here...it's probably still a little short, but sometimes I get antsy and jump the gun on stuff. Anyway, judging by how backlogged GAN is right now, it will probably be a while before anyone gets around to reviewing it, but I just thought I'd give you a heads-up in case you'd like to participate in the discussion once we have a reviewer. Best, —Politizer talk/contribs 19:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Great work...I'd be happy to help where I can!LedRush (talk) 19:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Palin talk page

Hi LedRush, I see that you removed my comment. You did see where Jimmuldrow said is was ok to add that Palin is not pro-rape as long as it could be sourced? Anyways, --Tom 15:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but I don't see the need to bait him on this. I think that it would be great if the straw poll would just include people's opinions and not become a long argument on the points.LedRush (talk) 15:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
If you feel I deleted in error, please feel free to add it back...I won't fight about something like this.LedRush (talk) 15:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LedRush/Archive001&oldid=1138974195"