User talk:Loonymonkey: Difference between revisions

Archive 1 2 3

I see a few every month. The best place to take them is emergency@wikimedia.org, which exists for this sort of thing. Don't worry if you get an "out of office" reply - the e-mail goes to a dozen people or more and if one of them is on vacation you'll get that, but the message will still be handled by someone else on the list.

The emergency address is quicker, more effective, and lets the Foundation make a decision as to whether the threat warrants calling authorities in. (Usually doesn't, but the decision's above our pay grade.) It also denies the death threatener any additional notoriety - some do it to get on ANI. --NellieBly (talk) 23:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, yeah, it's pretty clearly just trolling in this case, but still not anything I want to respond to or get involved with myself. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How is a properly formed proposal on a talk page vandalism? No content has been changed. – Lionel ^(talk) 00:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't play coy. You're an experienced editor, so you clearly know that proposing replacing an official portrait of the President with a grotesque caricature is a needless April Fool's joke at best. And initiating an RfC for your joke is just an abuse of process and a waste of other editors' time. As a well-established editor, you know where this will lead if you continue. --Loonymonkey (talk) 03:17, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, thank you for your cleanups.

But I don't understand how you can object to the use of the word "hoax". For example, the case was put on this list of hoaxes back in 2009, and it appears to be entirely uncontroversial. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Hoaxes_in_the_United_States. Additionally, the top-rated review to KC Johnson's book uses the word "hoax", and again it appears to be entirely uncontroversial. http://www.amazon.com/Until-Proven-Innocent-Correctness-Injustices/dp/0312369123 William Jockusch (talk) 19:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from your User Page by Blaxthos

Hello there. I appreciate your desire to improve Wikipedia. However, I see you are doing a lot of reverts. Your stated reason for one recent revert on the Obama 2008 campaign page seemed particularly weak. I had increased a list of his campaign promises from three to five. With five promises, a bulleted list seemed appropriate to me. You reverted stating that there was no need for a bulleted list. I find this curious, as there are two three-point bulleted lists elsewhere in the article. Additionally, the article on the Bush 2004 campaign has a bulleted list of promises. Additionally, if your only issue with my edit was the bulleted list, it would have been more appropriate and productive to change it back to a paragraph, while retaining the added content. Additionally, the original list was biased towards promises Obama had kept. Like all politicians, he keeps some promises and breaks others. It is therefore more reasonable to include some unkept promises. William Jockusch (talk) 12:46 am, Today (UTC−4)

(please discuss this at the article in question, as I say above). That said, on the style question, MOS is pretty clear. Paragraphs are preferred over bulleted lists (and the fact that there are already other lists in the article is an argument against making another one. The edit had nothing to do with content it was a style issue. Fee free to propose (correctly reformatted) additions on the talk page. --Loonymonkey (talk) 15:32, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Loonymonkey, thanks for coming to my defense after the unjust block I was given (and had overturned). Much appreciation for the support.--JayJasper (talk) 23:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! It was a bad situation that obviously couldn't stand, one of the worst blocks I've ever seen (and it was nice to get unanimous agreement at AI/I). It would have had a chilling effect on editing if it had been allowed. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:12, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Barack Obama article does not conform to NPOV". Thank you.William Jockusch (talk) 15:09, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you reverted an edit to the Obama category. I considered doing that earlier, but after thinking about it for a minute I decided to leave it because it seemed appropriate to me. Just thought I'd mention it. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:44, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually incorrect. It's a continual misunderstanding. The liberalism category (like other such political spectrum categories) are for articles related to the subject of liberalism (that is, from a political science angle). They're not for editors to just arbitrarily decide "that guy's liberal, this newspaper is conservative, etc." Since category additions aren't referenced, this is especially important.--Loonymonkey (talk) 18:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was a link to the liberalism portal, rather than the category. It seemed appropriate to me. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:00, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. This is Grundle2600.

Regarding these edits that you made to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Grundle2600

Epowerfan and 50.0.12.121 are NOT me.

I don't want to take credit for someone else's work.

And I don't want someone else to get in trouble because of me.

The other socks that you listed are indeed me.

I have never tried to hide the fact that a sock was me once it was discovered by someone else. I have always been honest about this.

Also, those two that you mistakenly attributed to me were created two months ago, not "yesterday" as you claimed.

Tired and dopey (talk) 11:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel strongly enough regarding the difference between consider and described then you should really change it on the O'Reily page also. Rodchen (talk) 15:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you reverted in good faith and simply forgot about my post on the Media Matters talk page, asking if you had a new objection, now that RS had been knocked down. However, as you are surely editing in good faith, I'm sure you will realize that you now need to self revert your reversion, as you had 5 days to raise an new objection and did not do so. Thanks!William Jockusch (talk) 20:11, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please discuss this at the article in question, not on my talk page (see giant notice at the top of this page). I'll respond there.--Loonymonkey (talk) 20:34, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Politico has an article called Solyndra controversy debate rages on Wikipedia and you're mentioned on the second page. 871lacc (talk) 04:47, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You posted or reposted an erroneous statement, claiming that Sheriff Arpaio has not sent investigators to Hawaii. You or anyone can Google "Sheriff Arpaio investigators Hawaii" and see plenty of articles, including http://www.nowpublic.com/world/sheriff-arpaio-s-detectives-concentrate-investigation-hawaii Please stop lying on Wikipedia.