Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:51, 28 January 2010

Help needed - Edit war 2 - Aggressive and Incompetent Edits by User Verbal

I am requesting help with an over-aggressive and inconsiderate editor by the name of VERBAL. This person keeps reverting a page to add an external link while losing dozens of valid updates to the original page. He/She ignores when proper updates are made and reverts them even using Twinkle and spurious excuses for the revisions. I am ill-equipped to fight this user. You will see what I mean if you check the revision history for the following page.

List of channelled texts

Thanks in advance for any help you can provide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.53.72 (talk) 16:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit war

I am well within the 3rr rule. There is no war. Thay have finally gone to the talkpage, which Brothe whatever reverted.--Die4Dixie (talk) 22:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Please don't tell me you don't see a war when it happens :)  ;) --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Seems like others agree with my assessment. About time there was alittle oversite on that page ;)Die4Dixie (talk) 04:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Revert on Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories

In re: this revert and edit summary. Per talk refers to this talk page section, specifically the discussions with User:Brothejr (the user who originally reverted my changes). Protonk (talk) 23:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Consensus is not clear yet . The discussion with Brothejr is only part of the discussion with one editor and is/was not addressing what should be dumped/rewritten or integrated in a different way.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, at the time of writing (or re-adding the content), the only person registering a complaint was Brothejr. the other comments in the thread were variously supportive of the revisions made. As I said there, I'm not interested in discussing things for the sake of discussing them, so if someone has a real objection to the changes made, let's hear it. If they don't, I can't imagine why the discussion between me and Brothejr would not settle the matter of the quotes under discussion. Absent some objection to the changes, what is the 'consensus' we are waiting for? Protonk (talk) 00:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

It's just not very vise (in my opinion) to be bold while there is still a discussion going on and probably won't lead to a stable version of the article regarding this issue.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Response to question about Klan

I have answered your question about the Klan on my talkpage. I was not offended in the slightest.--Die4Dixie (talk) 04:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Die4Dixie

I think he means me. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. With D4D you never know.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Ashe the Cyborg

Hi, thank you so much for your advice. I did actually use the tildes when posting on the talk page but something screwy happened. Nevertheless, good advice :) ABCGi (talk) 08:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Sh*t happens but it's nothing to worry about since it can be fixed :) . Best, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Ron Paul

Hello, The Magnificent Clean-keeper. I've put forward another proposal in an attempt to resolve the content dispute at Ron Paul. Please take a look and let me know what you think. Thanks! Nick Graves (talk) 17:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Nick. I'll kick in when I have time.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

RE: September 2009/Barack Obama Joker Poster

I had already discussed and sourced that particular bit of information on the articles talk page. The article I sourced the "including democrats" from is already referenced in the article.

However, last time I tried to use the same reference more than once I ended up creating several of the same reference links at the bottom of the article. If you could have a look and help me out with this, that would be awesome.

Hope to hear back soon. Metty (talk) 02:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I will take a look shortly.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Metty (talk) 02:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Done.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

(Oops. Thanks for removing the duplicate quote I just copy and pasted by mistake.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC))

ACORN

Regarding consensus at ACORN, it wasn't just one editor. It was three. Please see Wikidemon's Talk page, I refuse to be baited into an edit war. Satisfy yourself that this edit was fully supported, and then revert yourself. Thanks. 71.57.8.103 (talk) 01:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Nope, it wasn't and you already did get some responses in this regard on both talk pages.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Your ACORN edits

(copy from Noroton's talk page to keep it together)

• Title: Acorn edit and RS :

"Did you really think a fact like that wouldn't have multiple sources?"

Nope, but you should know better and should have provided a RS in the first place (although an online source would be preferred). Cheers, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Please point out where a consensus has established that the New York Post is not RS. -- Noroton (talk) 20:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

What is it that you want? You provided another source and Wikidemon converted it into an online one. Problem solved, isn't it?--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

You put a note on my page in which you continued to call the New York Post an unreliable source. I wanted to know why. What is it you want? -- Noroton (talk) 20:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

PS: There is a big difference in "it would be investigating" and "is investigating".--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no, the difference is so trivial as to not be worth mentioning. You didn't answer my question. -- Noroton (talk) 20:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

National dish article

Hi, thank you for your response. I am sorry that I can't get back to you on the discussion over national dish article, specifically on Germany, as I've been terribly busy lately. I will let you know when we can work it out together. Haleth (talk) 12:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

You asked an excellent question. Here's an excellent answer.

In this edit of yours, where you erased the entry on medical marijuana from Presidency of Barack Obama, you commented, "A 'very popular topic'? For whom? Any source that says so or is it just a popular topic for you? rm. 'news section' w/o connection."

OK. That's a legitimate point.

On March 26, 2009, the New York Times reported, "... the first live Internet video chat by an American president... after 3.6 million votes were cast, one of the top questions turned out to be a query on whether legalizing marijuana..."

So there you have it. The New York Times has addressed your concern. Please revert your edit. Thank you.

Grundle2600 (talk) 21:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

An excellent answer? Maybe by your standards, not by mine. Let's summarize the notability by using your source:

• Over "100,000 questions were submitted".
• Over "3.6 million votes were cast" to select the "most popular" questions (but what is the total # of votes?)..
• "after 3.6 million votes were cast, one of the top questions turned out to be a query on whether legalizing marijuana might stimulate the economy by allowing the government to regulate and tax the drug." So was it really about the drug itself?
• Obama quote about this: “I don’t know what this says about the online audience...". That one is a funny question that I'm asking myself.
• "more than 64,000 people watched President Obama answer questions on Thursday in the first live Internet video chat by an American president". Huh? Quite a low number considering the number of questions submitted and the millions of votes cast, doesn't this raise a question in your own mind?
• And finally, was this whole thing brought up again besides when it was "news"? (At this point I want to remind you about wp:NOTNEWS).

So why do you think it belongs in the article and to top it up, as you did, deserves even it's own section without connection what-so-ever? And please don't give me, at any point, your standard "NPOV"-lecture that you're spreading around. To be blunt (and I know it is not very polite from my side but my patience is running out fast now), why don't you shove it up yours till it hits your brain so you understand what you are talking about? Take it as a matter of speech even so it sounds somehow is for sure highly offensive. I just don't know how I can make some simple things clear to you (and I'm not the only one). Look, I neither love nor hate you. You're just not a good WP editor and probably never going to be one (when it comes to politics) but rather could or would be a good news reporter (and again, when it comes to politics). I mentioned this at least ones at some point.

Anyways, wish you the best (I really do), The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Roman Polanski

I'm trying to keep the baying mob which is gathering on Talk:Roman Polanski from burning down the cinema. Would you mind taking a look? Cheers, Crafty (talk) 00:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, besides other things I'm busy watching the article itself (even so user:Sinneed does a pretty good job there keeping notorious "crap" out there) although I have to call it a night shortly. Can't promise anything but I'll try to keep an eye at the article's talk page the next few days, depending on the news that come in (if any). Just keep your head up and poor some water on the "cinema". Best, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Cheers, I've just reverted Urban's revert of your revert on the article page. But I think that's about all I can do without tripping over 3RR. Crafty (talk) 00:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

You made an honest mistake.

You made an honest mistake with the comment that you wrote when you made this edit. 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.

In addition, the information that I added is relevant and well sourced. Please revert your edit. Thank you.

Grundle2600 (talk) 22:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

That is your interpretation. I try to stick to the facts. Best, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

If the facts back up your accusation that I violated my restriction, then please post links to the two reverts that I made to the article with a one week time period. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, wait. I see. I did add the same information twice in under a week, but I did not realize it when I did it the second time. I apologize. That was my fault. I thought the original objection was that I was synthesizing two things together into one. So by adding them into separate sections, I was not doing that, so there is no possibility of synthesis. In order to prove my good faith, I will avoid editing that particular article for the rest of October 2009, based on that standard time clock that's located in England. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

What you should avoid is that editors (like me) have to remind you about your restrictions that can get you blocked for some extended time if you don't obey them. I'll be the last one filing a report but don't count on other editors to give you the same kind of slack.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I should be asking you

Does LotLE get some sort of indulgence for his abrasive comments in his edit summaries? And are you likewise immune regarding your false sock accusations against me? 64.208.230.145 (talk) 20:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Why should I care about "LotLE" and why should I (and everybody else here) think that you're anything else but a sock? If you prefer to be taking serious in certain areas of WP, you might want to create an account ; But of course, you can choose whatever suits you best. Till then, have a fun and nice day.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

And if you have an answer to my question in my edit summary feel free to post it.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

One of those recurring IPs

Perhaps you might take a look at the recent edits by User:64.208.230.145. You've had some contact with this editor and his/her disruptive edits. In particular, I noticed the IPs insertion of an unnecessary and duplicative direct quote in Ward Churchill academic misconduct investigation today. I've taken it out, but obviously need to avoid 3RR myself. LotLE×talk 18:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I've explained my position on the article Talk page, and more fully on Lulu's User Talk page. Please review before supporting his edit war. Thanks. 64.208.230.145 (talk) 19:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

This is my alternative account....

...and I am not using this account for any abusive sockpuppetry activities. I decided to create this account for security reasons. Notify all users that I am using this as an alternative.--Das Sicherheit (talk) 02:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The alternative account for 7107delicious, BTW.--Das Sicherheit (talk) 02:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Have we met before? Just wondering why you're posting this on my talk page.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Heh.

You have teh funnay. I like it. :) Crafty (talk) 22:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Crafty. In real live I'm the funny kind although online I'm more and more perceived as a "rough" kind of person. But who cares! ;) Thanks anyways for your post. Cheers, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and I relate in part to section two and five of your user page. :)) The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Underachieving Busy-Bodies of the 'Pedia Unite! Or interfere! Or something. :) Crafty (talk) 23:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll stick with/to "or something". ;) The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

More seriously

Given AniMate's insistence on shutting down the ANI Rimarama, I'm mulling over the wisdom of commencing WP:RFC/U proceedings against Ottava. Only mulling mind you. What say you? Crafty (talk) 01:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Please see my last comment at AniMate's talk page ; But I'll keep on watching Ottava from now on and if there is an RFC on him I might contribute to it with my short "painful" experience (with this editor). So long, I have to call it a night.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Out of curiosity and else: Do you have some personal experience (as an editor of course) with Ottava? If so, would you mind to give me a short personal opinion summary of it? Like I said, I'm just (or mostly just to be honest) curious and if I decide to let myself be drawn in into this potential RFC I prefer to be ahead, at least a little bit. Thanks in any case, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Wastful/ Waterjuice.

I see that you suspect that Wastful is a sockpuppet. So do i. User_talk:Wastful do you think we should send this to WP:SPI. Thanks. Oldag07 (talk) 22:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

See evidence: former waterjuice edit and a recent edit Oldag07 (talk) 22:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Please see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Waterjuice and comment there if so inclined. Thanks, Postoak (talk) 04:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be solved for now as the "wasteful juice" account is blocked. Let's see where this monkey pops up next. Best to you and Oldag07, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

As I expected, our little monkey in diapers popped up again in no time . Of course I had to sent "it" back home (and w/o bananas; Poor monkey). Passes the duck test with flying colors .The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I tagged the third account. I will report if s/he starts to vandalize. Thanks, Postoak (talk) 00:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

[Copy of my response at Postoak's talkpage:

Responding from what you left on my talk page: "Thanks"? No no no, thank you for taking care of this. I'll keep an eye on it and let you know if I discover any further update. Cheers, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)]

polanski

I am unsure, why did you revert the edit on polanski, there is an active discussion on the talkpage and the blp noticeboard, please explain why you simply reverted with no discussion and no edit summary? Off2riorob (talk) 18:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

At the time it was still an BLP issue, although I didn't check the talk page again before reverting as I was in a rush and therefore missed that one editor finally came up with a RS to back up the edit in question. It's as simple as this. My edit summary (that was something like: "rv. again per BLP" or similar) was lost by my naughty mouse but being under time pressure and I thought it should be clear enough anyways I didn't feel the need to "fix" it. BTW, the editor I reversed (which wasn't you) didn't complain. Maybe s/he understood? Best, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

For tidying up a second accidental deletion in an edit conflict on Global Warming. --BozMo talk 20:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Cheers, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy Festivus!

Happy Festivus! Grundle2600 (talk) 19:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Huh? Festivus today? The article says otherwise and although I'm a big fan of Seinfeld I don't celebrate this notable "federal holyday" or do I? Having a good bottle of wine stored I might change my mindset and take it as an excuse to pop the cork. Happy Festivus and happy Holydays to you, Grundle. The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not until a few weeks, but I like to be early. It's a non-denominational holiday for everyone. Thanks for your kind words! Grundle2600 (talk) 18:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

LeadSongDog come howl 15:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas.--Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 01:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Formally complain about PilgrimRose

I am now so fed up with PilgrimRose that I want her formally reviewed by an admin. How do I go about it, seeing that there is already a section on her activities on the ANI? Do I need to do more that I have done already (see ANI page)? I would appreciate your assistance as I have never done this before. Cheers rturus (talk) 19:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll see and I might give you a hand with this but I'm not up to date right now although I posted my initial intend from ANI at Bigtimepeace's talkpage. Let's wait for his response. In any case, Bigtimepeace is a very nice admin and IMEx always tries to calm things down with kind words, pointing out "misbehavior" against policies and common sense to whoever seems to have a misunderstanding in regards of them. I'm exhausted but will try to comment further at as later point. Ciao, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

It is not a problem at the moment. I am making some more conciliatory moves and LeadSongDog seems to be taking an interest. I don't want to go RFC, just get an admin to get her to retract the misrepresentation of me really. Honestly, she's a real PITA - ciao rturus (talk) 21:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I understand and BTW, Bigtimepeace is an admin. Cheers, Ciao, Saludos, etc. ;), The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Character Assassination

I am rather dismayed by Bigtimepeace's "resolution" to your ANI. It seems to me that he has totally failed to recognise my attempts to placate PilgrimRose and paid no attention to her persistent character assassination of me. I have posted something here on my talk page and I would be grateful if you could spare the time to review what I have written and I would appreciate any comments. I really don't want to be seen as some pedant who drags things on and on but I also don't see why PR should be allowed to indulge in character assassination of me with no comeback. rturus (talk) 16:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Rturus, please don't get me wrong but despite that I found Pilgrim's edits including her attacks extremely counterproductive which made me place my very first thread at ANI my actual intention was finally understood and addressed by user and admin Bigtimepeace. I really understand your point that this wasn't followed as much as it could but sometimes it is better to let things go and see what comes out of it. You could keep on collecting diffs, past ones and future ones if Pilgrim (who ceased for now his/her behavior for the better) would go back to old pattern and some administrative action would be needed. Till then (and I think and hope it won't happen) chill out and suck it up. Don't take it personally and be the bigger man or woman. That's how it works for me ;) .

I'm not looking much into the article itself lately since it has become mostly a wp:OR disregarding the very simple and yet essential rule of wp:RS's. As I said before, it will take a loooong time till this WP entry will be proper sourced and balanced and I'll not getting off dry land to interfere till the right time has come. Hope you don't mind to much. I wish you the best as I do for all who keep their bias out of this article. Ciao, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

No worries there MDC, I had already decided to "take one for the team" and just let it drop. I too am getting a bit fed up with the whole thing and I think I'm just going to fade into the distance from the Kercher subject. Thanks for your words though, I do appreciate it. Cheers. rturus (talk) 00:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Grundle and Diane Francis article

Whole thread with context to be found here .

It's now archived here. Grundle2600 (talk) 04:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

External links in Soundproofing, and related articles

Hi TMCK: I've undone your recent edit which removed all external links from the noted article(s). When I checked the links I found that they didn't contravene wp:Spam as they weren't promotional advertising pages, and they actually provided technical information directly related to the subject matter. Such sites are beneficial to those interested in soundproofing as they impart specific technical information. I did change the last item on the list to point directly to a sound-proofing article rather than the main index page which had a minor advertising strip at the very top. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 13:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Please check the links again. Also I've not an expertise as for being an expert in this area (besides knowing the physics of it) I do think that at least most of those external links are commercial spam . I'll leave it up to you to make changes as I don't see you as one of those spammers. Thanks for your note, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi again tmck: I appreciate both your cooperation and diligence helping to maintain WP's standards. SPAM is absolutely a problem; moreover its tricky to handle due to the possible erasure of valid and useful webpages directly related to the WP article. As a general rule and also referring to Misplaced Pages's Spam policies, I permit external links that directly address the article's subject matter so long as they don't self promote or advertise. This a.m. I restored several soundproofing/noise reduction links that fell into that category, and also left several others off which did self-promote. Again, its a bit of nuanced art to find the correct line to accept/reject a link, but it can be done properly with practice. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 23:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I understand your point and must admit that I'm applying WP's spam rule very strictly (even so not always). As I said before, in this case I will leave it up to you on deciding which "spam" we can tolerate for the good of the project and which should go. Since I have those links in my User:The Magnificent Clean-keeper/Sandbox I might by mistake remove one or more again at some point so please feel free to revert me if this happens although I can assure you it won't happen within the next few month as I will remember and obey your judgment. Best, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas Tree Worm!!!

Merry Christmas Tree Worm!!! Grundle2600 (talk) 05:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Spoken version

Seriously? I gave an explanatory edit summary, and it is by no means a requirement to point to a related talk page discussion. I hardly think it was worth bothering my talk page with it. In fact, I'd really rather you hadn't. People with 14,000+ Misplaced Pages edits don't really need lectures on edit summaries. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

resp. with context hereThe Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Can you please explain your reverts of my edits?--Epeefleche (talk) 02:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure I can and I already did so in my edit summaries. But please check the article's edit history where you can see that those edits where reversed several times and not just by me.

About plastic explosives: Read the WP article about PETN.

About his father being one of the "richest man in Africa": Read the source as he is one of the richest in Nigeria, not Africa.

About "also now known as the lap-bomber": See the source which is clearly spam and also reverted more than once.

Hope that cleared things up. The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• Will address one by one. The supporting ref to his being one of the richest men in Africa had been there previously -- would be interesting to see who deleted it. In any event, have restored it, along w/text. Its better next time to avoid this problem to indicate citation needed.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
• Agree as to lap bomber.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
• I've added sources, including articles from the NY Times and Washington Post, calling PETN a plastic explosive.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)--Epeefleche

• Please take a look at: Talk:Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab#Let's try to put some facts before fiction and reach some consensus. Thanks, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

It is there where we should keep further comments regarding the article. Best, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Helioculture image.jpg

Many thanks for creating this. If you think it's "not exactly state of the art" you must never have seen any of my efforts! All the best, Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. Besides having software problems (and by that I mean I couldn't use my preferred software and I'm not even mention my beloved old fashion drafting bord), I have a graphic design background and therefore my personal standards are higher than average, although there is no embarrassment not to live up to it, not for me or you or anybody else. I also might getting "to old" to provide more professional work.  ;)

Best, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

BTW, If you ever have a similar file (/drawing) that needs to be worked on for copyright reasons or other let me know. As long as there is no rush I'll be happy to help you out. Again, thanks a lot for your post here, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

That is a very kind offer that I will surely keep in mind! Thanks again, Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome (and you'd give me something to kill time :) ). The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

PS: For a good cause I'd say. The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Please see

please see this ] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 19:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I will take a look in a moment but be aware that I almost didn't believe the bright orange yellowish "You have new messages (last change)."-link anymore after you "scammed" me :D The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

First I thought like umh, not my style or at least not any more but before 3 minutes have passed I "trashed" my previous thoughts. "Gratefull dead"! Of course! I'm getting to old to remember titles and even faces.... What a bummer. So enjoy your ride! :)))) Best, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

And now I just did what I should've done earlier; I've read your user page. I really should have done this in the first place but you know how "editors" are. At the end, we're all just human with all the mistakes that come with it.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Cistercian or Trappistine???

LOL, I love your edit. I was thinking that same thing, but since the editor feels so strongly I moved it to the talk page. Nice save.Malke2010 21:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I've just posted a comment about my edit at the article's talk page. Cheers, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Email

You've got one.Malke2010 22:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Please. Your comments don't belong in an e-mail. If you have a problem with me as an editor place it on my talk page and the rest belongs on the article's talk page(s). All the pages including the one it seemed I could help out are on my watchlist. They are all highly watched and not only by me. You have them on your watchlist too, don't you? Hope this clears things up. Best, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

But of course feel free to reply by e-mail if you think it's necessary or send me one if there is confidential personal information you'd like to share with me or let me know about it.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

PS: Forgot to mention that I saw your comments at the Obama talk page even so I didn't respond. That would explain the 3rd page ;) . Cheers, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

What on the Obama talk page? 3rd page?Malke2010 23:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Brown's, Obama's and the Tea Party article. Just didn't want to leave you in the dark where I saw your contributions.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, you are not the only one following me. There are two other Obama editors following me. And I noticed none of you had previously made contributions to any of the articles the three of you came to. Please stop following me. I consider this WP:HOUNDING and I will take all three of you to the noticeboards if you persist. If you don't like what someone has to say on Obama's talk page, then discuss the issues on the talk page or the user's talk page. But do not hound me anymore. Thank you.Malke2010 23:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• So much for assuming good faith from your side -> none! So I'll do the same and after saving this comment you're gone. Please do not post here again unless you either regained AGF or have some important message. Also please don't e-mail me again unless you have something nice to say. Thanks.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)