User talk:CENSEI

To Do: Nedra Pickler

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, CENSEI, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Gary King (talk) 03:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. CENSEI (talk) 19:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

AFD

Please give a reason for your choice, per Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Discussion. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

No. Now leave me alone. CENSEI (talk) 20:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Your edits to Glenn Greenwald. . .

Hi CENSEI, I have placed a notice of your recent edits to the Glenn Greenwald biography at the biography of living persons noticeboard (here). Please gain consensus before re-adding the same or like material, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 04:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Removal of referenced text from Hannity's book article

I reverted the changes you made to the article. Please be aware that there has been a consensus building process in the discussion page. Please discuss specific issues in the talk page or request for an RFC if you are not satisfied with the outcome of the discussion. Well, I happen to notice your previous talk about Glenn Greenwald. Docku^Hi 10:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I did not reinsert the material because the BLP policy would seem to indicate that when there is a legitimate dispute over whether or not content is appropriate it is up to the editors who want to see it included to make the case before the material can go in the article. That’s why the process went forward on the Greenwald article with the material not included. CENSEI (talk) 14:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Your removal of factual material from Brian Ross (journalist)

What are you saying here? That someone who uses a reporter to disseminate false information is a news source? — goethean ॐ 17:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It is immaterial what you or I think, its Greenwald's opinion, and is not terribly notable in an article about Brian Ross. CENSEI (talk) 17:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Um, no, if the "source" is not a source of facts, but of fiction, that is absolutely central to whether the "source" should be ptotected. — goethean ॐ 18:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

And when a reliable enough source, or better yet several of them come to that conclusion, then it might be noteworthy. Right now all we have is one opinion from one marginally noteworthy person. CENSEI (talk) 18:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Right now all we have is one opinion from one marginally noteworthy person.

Yeah, versus...you. — goethean ॐ 18:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry guy, but its clear that you have to source it, the source has to be notable on that topic, and it has to be a significant enough event to include it in the article. These are the rules, as I am quickly coming to understand them, and I will enforce them where I encounter them being broken. CENSEI (talk) 18:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Editing

CENSEI wrote: "I have been going through a lot of the articles you have contributed to and I just have to say ..... not cool." Please CENSEI refrain from WP:STALK. Seriously, your edits are sloppy, you are confrontational, your edit summaries are often misleading and you are focusing on removing left-leaning criticism while boost up right-leaning criticism. This isn't NPOV editing, it is merely partisan editing, not an effort to improve Wikipedia. Bring up your concerns with Goethean on the WP:RS talk page and get others involved otherwise you are violating WP:STALK and creating a disturbance. Wikipedia should not be a contest of wills, no matter how strongly you feel about things. --John Bahrain (talk) 01:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Reading another user's contribution log is not in itself harassment; those logs are public for good reason. In particular, proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy or correcting related problems on multiple articles

, so I certainly dispute the stalking accusation. My edits may be sloppy for now, but I am a quick learner. Please point to an example where I removed left leaning criticism and boosted right leaning criticism? All I have done so far is to decreas all criticism, especialy when it violates policy. CENSEI (talk) 01:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll repeat myself: bring in others and aim for consensus. Wikipedia isn't a contest of wills and if you just go around reverting Goethean's edits in a sloppy fashion while treathening and berating him, you are just creating an unpleasant atmosphere that isn't going to conclusively solve things. I think your removal of Goethean's unsourced addition to the Brian Ross article earlier was a good one since it wasn't at all sourced. But arguing about WP:WEIGHT is not a clear-cut battle and saying that TPM and Glenn Greenwald aren't valid sources is I think going too far. I think you are editing too fast in the case of Milbank as there were good sources that supported that material, including Politico, but you were just removing it wholesale while being confrontational with Goethean. You aren't aiming for consensus, you are trying to dominate via a contest of wills, just what I was saying that Goethean shouldn't try to do earlier. --John Bahrain (talk) 01:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed nothing from the Milbank article, I just trimmed it down to an approproate length, as pwe WP:WEIGHT. Consensus does not trump policy. CENSEI (talk) 01:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure? This is what I am referring to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dana_Milbank&diff=230028885&oldid=230026286 --John Bahrain (talk) 01:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

To answer your earlier question, here is an edit that I felt boosted up a right-leaning take on things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Halperin&diff=next&oldid=230050033

Notice how you emphasized the "reinforce long standing beliefs of media bias" based on a reference for which the text isn't even available online. That struck me as strange. You are doing some research for some positions. You just said yourself that you come from Conservapedia. You are also removing TPM and Gleen Greenwald links, which are left leaning sources (and I've seen you remove DailyKos links, but that is more understandable and it is an open blogging site.) You are also ridiculing MMFA. This is unfortunately partisan talk. --John Bahrain (talk) 01:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The whole sentence I added, not just the section above will provides it with the needed context Halperin was criticized by conservatives who used the memo to reinforce long standing beliefs of media bias.. I thought I was being clear that is was conservatives, cited fro Ponnuru and the Washington Times that were linking this to thier own perceptions of bias. CENSEI (talk) 15:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

"BLP board"

Can you please provide a link to the specific section so I can participate in that discussion? Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 00:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Nedra Pickler. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Papa November (talk) 11:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Unblock

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

CENSEI (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Yeago follows me around my edits undoing them and I get blocked? He remvoes a tag on an article when he clearly knows there is an issue with iy and I get blocked? No one sees anything wrong with that? CENSEI (talk) 13:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Yeago has been blocked as well. In any event, you clearly violated 3RR. And if posting unblock requests in the future, remember to talk about yourself, not others. — Daniel Case (talk) 13:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

ANI-notice

Hello, CENSEI. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — goethean ॐ 18:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

At this time, I've blocked your account from editing for 48 hours; the editor you were revert warring with has been blocked for 24 hours. Please note that further edit warring in the near future may result in further blocks of escalating length; I'd instead encourage you to make appropriate use of talk pages and Wikipedia's dispute resolution process to better develop consensus regarding the most appropriate article versions. I appreciate that you're approaching this issue with the best of intentions, and should emphasize that this block is not a punishment -- should you convincingly commit to stop reverting and instead discuss issues (note: "instead" rather than "also"), I'd be happy to consider an unblock request on that condition. Obviously you're welcome to appeal this, as I see you've done with your other recent block. Take care. – Luna Santin (talk) 18:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Unblock

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

CENSEI (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was blocked for edit warring on and article and vandalism. WP:RPA would suggest that I have the right to remove a personal attack against me, as Goethean made over at ANI, and the IP editor who called me “a racist, sexist right wing nut job”. I would be more than happy to explain all my edits on talk, as I have done before, and if I am not unblocked for editing, I would like to be unblocked so that I can defend myself over at ANI. Thank you. CENSEI (talk) 18:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Please address your actions not the actions of other, also it may help to take a peak at this guide to requesting unblocks — Tiptoety ^talk 18:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I did replace the {{vandal}} template with {{userlinks}} (they're functionally identical, but most people are more familiar with the former -- I'm not sure if they meant anything by it; they may have just thought it would be a useful template). I can't do anything about an edit summary, unfortunately, but if anything you judge to be an attack remains on a talk page, please point it out. You're welcome to respond on this talk page, in the meantime. – Luna Santin (talk) 18:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Its not about removing the edit summary, I feel as if I was treated unfairly and that no one will take a personal attacks, or even policy issues seriously around here. After complaing about edit warring Goethian's first edit is a revision on the article. [1]. CENSEI (talk) 18:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, in all fairness, the user who called you a "racist, sexist right wing nut job" is blocked (by me), and you're free to let admins know if that sort of verbal abuse continues. More than anything, the behavior we're hoping for here is discussion (hopefully the civil, consensus-building variety). – Luna Santin (talk) 18:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, in all fairness, three editors are enaged in edit warring: one is blocked for 2 days, one is blocked for one day (and has made peronal attacks), and the other is not blocked at all? How the hell is that fair? CENSEI (talk) 18:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Has the aforementioned third user violated the three-revert rule? – Luna Santin (talk) 20:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

According to the block log, you blocked me for edit warring, and not for 3RR. If I was guilty of edit warring (which in retrospect, I agree that I was) were not all users who were engaged in reverting without talking also guilty of edit warring, it was the same behavior for all users involve din that article for the past several days, including an administrator. And if it was only because I crossed the 3RR boundary, why was I not warned of this instead of going right to the block? All I want is consistency. CENSEI (talk) 20:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring describes a general behavior, while 3RR describes both a specific violation and what is commonly referred to as an "electric fence". You've been linked to both policies, over the past few days, and are presumably aware of them. As far as consistency, if police see three cars speeding, two of which are going nearly double the limit and one of which is slightly over, which car(s) do you think are most likely to be pulled over? – Luna Santin (talk) 20:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring does describe a certain behavior, a behavior that 4 editors were behaving in, and only 2 of them were punished. Your analogy doesn’t really work because you don’t have to deliberate whom you apply the rules to, you pick and choose who to apply the rules to. So lets try another, more apt analogy. A policeman mans a DUI checkpoint, and is supposed to check the sobriety of every driver that passes him. The first person he sees driving up is his friend, and he waves him through. The second guy he sees, he pulls to the side and smelling alcohol on his breath asks how much he has had to drink, but lets him go through without a breathalyzer. The third guy is pulled to the side given a breathalyzer and blows over the limit and is belligerent to boot, he goes to jail for a day. The last guy is pulled over, and he too blows over the limit, and goes to jail for 2 days. All the analogies do not get around the fact that this was handled selectively and disproportionately. Consistency ….. pass it on. CENSEI (talk) 13:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Not a very good analogy for you, either, I'm afraid. In this case, all of the "drivers" were checked, and all of those above the "legal limit" were blocked. What's unfair about that? – Luna Santin (talk) 00:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I suppose we will have to agree to disagree. CENSEI (talk) 01:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

It was my racing that led us both past this legal limit. I apologize for this. But fair is fair; 3RR is 3RR. The other editors of the article are doing no such racing--they are innocuous contributers who deserve the benefit of the doubt.Yeago (talk) 01:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

McMaster-Carr

I am fully aware that McMaster-Carr is not the cheapest place in the world, but it is extremely convenient because one of their warehouses is in chicago and I can get same day delivery for the price of UPS ground. Note only that, but they usually carry just about anything I need in stock (although I do wish they had a fuller metric hardware selection...but you can't have everything). For all of our production requirements we definitely use distributors to help with the cost, supply, and management. McMaster is also great for getting onesies and twosies for prototypes =) --Wizard191 (talk) 01:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Elmhurst actually :) I sent one of my engineers out there, and he passed it 5 times trying to find it ... how someone missed a 3 million squarefoot solid brick building is beyond me. McMaster Carr has saved my ass before as well. Where else can I order a hasteloy gearpump and be 100% confident that I can pick it up 40 minutes after I call them. CENSEI (talk) 02:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Article probation notice

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, that an article to which you have recently contributed, Talk:Barack Obama, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation. Please accept this as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that you have violated the probation terms. Thank you. - Wikidemo (talk) 04:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

Although we are evidently coming from different political perspectives, I want to apologize for accusing you of a POV rv on the TON article. It was a true lapse on my part, but a good faith mistake. Aloha, Arjuna (talk) 02:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem, but whats the TON article? CENSEI (talk) 14:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Report me then

Then I suggest you report me. User talk pages are the appropriate place to raise concerns about civility and behavior, not article talk pages. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)