Misplaced Pages

Interpersonal communication does not work when messages are left on individual users' talk pages rather than threaded, especially when a third party wishes to read or reply.

Being a "bear of very little brain", I get easily confused when trying to follow conversations that bounce back and forth, so I've decided to try the convention that many others seem to use, aggregation of messages on either your talk page or my talk page. If the conversation is about an article I will try to aggregate on the article's talk page.

• If the conversation is on your talk page or an article talk page, I will watch it.
• If the conversation is on my talk page or an article talk page and I think that you may not be watching it, I will link to it in a note on your talk page, or in the edit summary of an empty edit. But if you start a thread here, please watch it.

I may mess up, don't worry, I'll find it eventually. Ping me if you really need to.

please note this is a personal preference rather than a matter of site policy

Scotire

A few FYIs regarding this user:

1. Now blocked for 6 months on Commons (edit warring and personal attacks).
2. An obvious related IP has been identified (Special:Contributions/59.167.60.9
3. I have identified a copyvio on WP see Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Scotland#Scotire and copyvios

The last of these is particularly worrying, as I expect there are many more affecting many articles. Do you have any idea on the correct process to follow?--Nilfanion (talk) 22:43, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Probably all of his contributions will have to be removed. Lot of work. --John (talk) 05:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Certainly agree its a lot of work! :( I don't think all the contribs are copvios, but between that and removal of the POV issues he introduced... sigh.--Nilfanion (talk) 07:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

It might be easier to remove all his contributions than to search each one to see if it is a violation. What a nuisance. --John (talk) 08:50, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Shires of Scotland

I am attempting to follow the debate on the removal of categories referring to Scottish 'shires'. The term 'shire' is in common use in Scotland. I understand that the Post Office no longer uses that element in an address, and that Scottish Council areas are an administrative delineation, but shires do still exist. There are at least ten Scottish Westminster constituencies which are shires.

Who has made the decision to make these changes? And where can I find that recorded?Shipsview (talk) 09:27, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea. --John (talk) 13:51, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

obsolescent / obsolete

http://en.wiktionary.org/obsolescent gives a definition inconsistant with usage in warrior article , surely one must be incorrect ? 78.105.186.64 (talk) 21:01, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Wiktionary is user-generated and so it isn't the best source. All the same, "In the process of becoming obsolete, but not obsolete yet" seems fair to me. Like the Panavia Tornado in 2013, the Warrior could still do some useful work but was definitely no longer state-of-the-art. Or like Windows XP, as I said. --John (talk) 21:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Very interesting comparisons. I must agree that "obsolescent" is by no means a less clear or unduly verbose wording of "obsolete" - it means a different thing. I recall in particular the appendices to The Battle for the Falklands by Max Hastings and Simon Jenkins, which contained an exhaustive listing of the weapons used by both sides in 1982, and noted specifically that many weapon systems used by the British were either obsolete or obsolescent at the time.

The outstandingly fiery example of either one or the other, was the Sea Slug (missile). The version in use had a limited capability against ships, and the British tried to exploit this by approaching at night and attempting to fire at the Argentine defences of Port Stanley airfield from more than a dozen miles offshore.

The attempt was an utter failure, but the British fleet received a request to try again, from British ground forces who by this time were on high ground within sight of Stanley. Asked whether the request was because success was likely, the ground forces said no, absolutely not - the weapon should be used again purely because its ridiculous take-off sequence, involving multiple separate booster rockets spinning like a Catherine Wheel, was a grand display even from the British positions, and might have an equivalent effect on the morale of Argentineans who saw it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:04, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Interesting, thank you. I have that book and I must reread it. --John (talk) 10:03, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

What do you think of this?

What are your thoughts on this closure? GabeMc 19:44, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

It's rather surprising. I see the editor in question has self-reverted, which seems like the wise thing to do. --John (talk) 22:07, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:3RR warning on Brad Pitt

Before you claim a WP:BLP exemption, please note "hat counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." Neither the BLP board or ANI have given any indication your actions are exempt from WP:3RR. --NeilN 23:39, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Before you come here giving me a "warning", please ensure you haven't just restored multiple instances of tabloid journalism to a BLP, in contravention of WP:BLPSOURCES. --John (talk) 05:27, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Shoah (film)

I've just spent a wet Sunday trying to improve Shoah (film) only to see a lot of it undone. I wonder if I could trouble you for your opinion whether the article was better before or after . I am a slow editor and reluctant to throw good time after bad, but if you think it was better before, I am prepared to have a go at defending my edits per BRD. Thanks. TwoTwoHello (talk) 23:41, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I see good in both versions. It should be possible to strike a compromise over this material. --John (talk) 05:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Kirill  17:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

user: Y45ed

A couple of weeks ago you blocked user Y45ed for genre warring. Just wanted to let you know that he/she is at it again. ChakaKong 01:35, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. --John (talk) 06:58, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Question

You obviously don't have to answer this, but it would be a kindness if you're willing to, and would help me personally in getting a better picture of you as an editor: what's your class background? For instance, what's your profession, to what level were you educated and where, what were your parents or guardians professions, that sort of thing. Thanks! Herostratus (talk) 14:52, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I decline to answer the "class" question, as I don't believe in class. George Orwell will explain the subtleties of the British class system to you if you can be bothered. Educationally I have a science degree from an ancient university, a post-graduate degree, and a qualification in teaching English. --John (talk) 05:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

OK thanks very much. (Don't believe in class, hmmmm. That's OK, there are also people who don't believe in the Forth Bridge I suppose, although explaining why there are trains at North Queensferry station requires some mental gymnastics I would think.) Yes I agree Orwell is top-drawer on these things and I really should read him more thoroughly. Thanks again! Herostratus (talk) 13:25, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, what I meant was that I don't believe in class as a predictor of intelligence, workrate, values or anything else important. Obviously I realise that it exists. And the Orwell reference wasn't meant to sound snotty; there's a great essay about class that I haven't read since I was about 13 - do you know the one I mean? Oh, and there were trains at NQ for many years before the bridge was built; there was a ferry, dontcha know? --John (talk) 13:49, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

No I didn't know (about the ferries). And the Orwell comment wasn't taken as snotty at all -- bringing Orwell into most any conversation improves it. I haven't read that much Orwell so I don't know the one you mean, but I've lately been at Chris Hitchens (how he'd hate that "Chris" but he's no longer a WP:BLP so the heck with him!) who very much wanted to be Orwell. I can't recommend the memoirs unless you're really into Hitch, but the essays are worthwhile if you skip judiciously. Anyway, I crafted a (very, sorry!) long request to you (the actual request is at the end), but it was edit conflicted by all this here, and maybe some doesn't exactly apply given your more detailed response, but I'm going to paste it in verbatim, since this is a talk page and not the Literary Gazette and I'm not inclined to do further copyediting. It's below. Herostratus (talk) 20:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Among the many useful tasks User:Flyer22 performs here is watching and engaging on articles like Pedophilia and related articles. In a nutshell, we're contending with the sort of editor who wants include material such as "However, some researchers contend that sexual experience even at a very young age, if done with care and mutual consent, can be harmless or even healthy ". As you might imagine, these people can be well-versed in obscure literature on the subject and on Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines, tireless, and of course careful to use language much more subtle that the example I give. Contending with this sort of thing is stressful and unpleasing for a number of reasons, and there're not many editors willing to do it who have the requisite learning, intellectual chops, and patience to do it well.

User:Flyer22's one, so you can see why her expressed retreat from that article due to "other things, including stressful things with regard to Misplaced Pages" troubled me and prompted me to look into that, and so I found this. In all candor, I have to say that that was a spectacularly bad edit. It's OK, we all make a lot of edits, and some of them are going to be bad edits. I know I make plenty of bad edits. The thing then is to move forward, be big enough to admit the mistake, and make corrections.

Drilling down into the situation, I found a great deal of contention re People and the New York Daily News. I didn't read everything in detail, but I see where you (understandably, we're only human) got your back up quite a bit. Argument here is often contentious and stressful and taking fixed positions comes naturally and can be functional, but consider. Your position seemed to me fairly idiosyncratic. As the author of Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources checklist (check it out -- I'm a bit proud of it) I have thought about these things a little bit, and I'm not seeing your argument as the stronger, and certainly not incontrovertibly the stronger.

OK, so anyway, I guess we don't agree about the veracity of the New York Daily News and People, and you've been pretty vociferous about that -- "not on my watch" and so on. This would not be my concern, except for the collateral damage described above, which makes it my concern. So, wondering about that, I tried to form a picture in my head of just what's going on here. Let's drill down through this together.

The New York Daily News is a working man's paper. It's the kind of paper you'll find discarded on the subway, and maybe with grimy fingerprints at that. That's a data point, but in and of itself it's a minor point re reliability. It's a minor point because in my experience working people want the facts they read to be correct as much as anyone else. (People's pitched more to the lower middle class, but "the sort of person who reads People magazine" is also a construction that most people would "get".)

I realize you don't believe in class, but that also is pretty idiosyncratic, and I'm only going to allow you one idiosyncratic position today =). That social mileu and so forth influences our attitudes is pretty established, I'd say. I believe -- along with, I think, most everyone else who's thought about it -- that social class (along with many other things) influences our thinking, often in ways we're not aware of. In fact I'm confident of it.

Anyway, assuming that I (and essentially everyone else) is correct about that, what newspapers we read define us in class terms, to ourselves as well as others, just as do the clothes we wear, the pubs we frequent, and so on, I believe. A visceral aversion to publications of a different class follows from this, and in fact is rife in my experience. Everyone in my city understands which is the working-class paper and which the middle-class, and which one is proper for them, and from an early age. (FWIW they're about equally good, although no proper middle-class person will admit this.)

Anyway, in "our attitudes" I include "your attitudes" (as well as "my attitudes"), and there's the rub. The facts as I've reviewed them lead me to believe that your position is largely informed by a visceral aversion to the publications in question.

I can't prove any of this, could be wrong, and don't wish to debate this with you (I will if you want). Instead, I'd ask you take some time and just calmly consider this to yourself, within yourself, if you will. If I'm wrong, feel free to ignore me, blow me off, counterargue, or whatever pleases you (since it won't really matter). But if I'm right, you made an error in templating User:Flyer22. An understandable error, especially in the heat of the moment, but one that needs addressing.

The actual request

So, depending on the results of your contemplation of this matter, I'd like you to apologize to User:Flyer22 for the templating I mentioned earlier. Effusion is not required nor a complete reversal of your position re the publications in question, and of course you can't do it if you still think your edit was justified. However, if you could see your way free to do this, this would be a kindness, would be helpful to the project, and would speak well of your character and flexibility of mind, I think. Herostratus (talk) 20:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate the time and thought that you have put into this. I disagree with several of your premises. Here is the edit I warned her for. You will observe that as well as the People references which were disputed, she restores the New York Daily News ones, and one from The Sun. It is neither snobby nor visceral on my part to point out that these are unambiguously and undisputedly bad sources for a BLP, and this is what the warning was for. Whether her edit was intentionally disruptive or the result of an error, this is the sort of edit people are blocked for and as I stated below I believe I or any admin would have been justified in blocking her had she continued. As it was she made two reverts of non BLP-compliant material during a dispute with an admin, before running off to a drama board to complain. She has also repeatedly insulted me (I can't be bothered searching for diffs but there's a whole section on her talk page you can read) and misrepresented me and my motives. Again, whether this comes from malice or stupidity on her part is immaterial; she has definitely had all the apology she is going to get from me, because I regard adding or restoring tabloid smut and sleaze to Brad Pitt's article every bit as seriously as you regard controversial edits to the paedophilia page. I will back off from removing more People sources pending an RfC about this, but I will if anything be even less flexible and tolerant of unambiguously tabloid sources on BLPs as a result of this interaction. Once again, I really do appreciate the time and trouble you have put into this request but I decline it. Best wishes, --John (talk) 05:47, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, I hear you. Better to stick to your guns then issue an insincere apology, I guess. I can't agree with a lot of what you say and believe, but we're not going to change each other's minds probably, so that's that. I do see you're getting your head handed to you over at the RfC regarding People, which probably depresses you, but I've had my head handed to me on various issues and at the end of the day you have to accept that (or leave if you can't), and I hope you can do that. Herostratus (talk) 02:28, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

On sourcing and the yellow press

I have walked away from the wankfest that the AN/I discussion has become as I have better things to do and little time to do them in. I have a job, a family and am still recovering from moving house. I thought I would make a final comment on the whole People furore.

• As a serious encyclopedia we can never use material from the tabloids/red tops/yellow press to source contentious information about living people. Full stop. You may like this, dislike it, or be indifferent to it, but that's what our policy says. If you don't like it, get another hobby. Charity shops are always looking for volunteers, and I hear Facebook is great fun. On Misplaced Pages we can't use tabloids like this. As always there will be a very few valid exceptions; Neil Kinnock has been mentioned, Freddy Starr's non-hamster eating escapade, the GOTCHA in the Falklands War as it related to certain living people. That's policy, and breaking it will get you blocked. I will still enforce this, by warnings and blocks if necessary.

• It seems there is a sizable body of people who think People is a good source for BLP material. It's a gossip magazine for goodness sake! Garbage like this and Hello are not good sources, and I believe should never be used on BLPs, but I concede they are not quite "tabloids" so strictly fall outside of current policy. We seemingly need an RfC to properly determine whether we want to use garbage sources like these on BLPs, which astonishes me but so be it. It seems to be like arguing over just how runny faeces has to be before we consider it to be diarrhea, but ok.

• Arguing for using poor sources on an article about a living human being seems so counter to our mission that I find it extremely hard to assume good faith on the part of those who have done so. Nevertheless I apologise if I have hurt anyone's feelings during this episode. It should be possible to disagree without getting upset when one is wrong. "Warning" another editor you are in a dispute with, after you have just restored non-compliant sources to a BLP, is the very definition of dumbassery, but I suppose that editor is not always a dumbass. We all do silly things sometimes. Edit-warring to restore bad sources can never be regarded as "best practice"; a guideline should be that if sources are challenged, better ones should be found. Where they cannot be, the article should be edited to reflect this. I have faith that the Brad Pitt article will be improved as a result of my intervention, which is something good. Once again, our Featured Article process is made to look extremely silly, by promoting an article which was partly based on poor sources.

So it goes. Onwards and upwards. --John (talk) 14:13, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

You'll excuse me if I call this a load of self-serving dumbassery (not that you're always a dumbass)? --NeilN 19:10, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll excuse you, Neil, the well-meaning human who edits using your account. But I don't think that's a helpful comment, and I have come to an opinion about your understanding of our mission which the shallowness of your comment only reinforces. I'd love to revise that opinion upwards. Tell me, do you ever do anything useful here, like article writing and the like? --John (talk) 19:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Look through my 40,000+ edits and judge for yourself. And really, why should I care about your opinion on this matter as you've not put forth one argument supporting your contentions. Explain why you think People is a garbage source (People is a garbage source because it's a garbage source doesn't cut it) or point to previous discussions involving this and then I'll take your opinion as having value. Finally, I have to laugh at the statement that your intervention will improve the Pitt article. No, it was Flyer22 raising the matter at various boards and Ritchie333's excellent work that will improve the article. I guess you can take some of the credit for getting them to do the work you should have done. --NeilN 19:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

If you don't care about my opinions, why are you posting about it on my talk page? --John (talk) 19:55, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't care as long as you stick to "People is a garbage source because it's a garbage source". But this issue isn't going to go away so I'm hoping you'll have some good insights and arguments in the forthcoming discussion. As I stated above, as soon as you start doing that, your opinion matters to me. --NeilN 20:03, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Where did I say "People is a garbage source because it's a garbage source"? A diff will be fine. If you can show where you think I said that, maybe we can have a conversation. --John (talk) 20:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I was paraphrasing. If your argument has more depth than "People is a garbage source because I say so" then I apologize but I haven't seen any evidence of that except for one total red herring. --NeilN 13:17, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, I appreciate the apology, and your admission that you were paraphrasing. It so happens that your paraphrase is inaccurate. I will make a comment at the BLPN discussion and give more detail about why I don't think we should use People as a source, as it seems you are not the only user to whom this is not obvious. Talking of red herrings, mischaracterising another user's statement and then demanding that he justify it is probably in there, or is it a strawman argument? It certainly isn't likely to advance debate to argue this way, do you think? --John (talk) 17:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Don't accept that apology yet. My observations were correct. Up until now, it's been "People is a garbage source because I say so". I have not mischaracterized your past arguments. --NeilN 18:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh. Well, if you think you know my intentions and my meaning better than I do myself, once again I don't know why you bother to post here. If you're trying to come across as more competent than when you "warned" me after you had restored a tabloid source to a BLP, I have to say it isn't (yet) working. --John (talk) 18:14, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Good. I appreciate that we can count on you to participate in the upcoming community discussion on using People in BLPs. I am seriously hoping it will wind up we don't use it for anything on Misplaced Pages, but its supporters, outside of NeilN, appear worried that the discussion will draw that conclusion and are trying to derail the RFC before it starts to prevent that, or so it seems, which makes it easier to understand your attitude during this. NeilN has set up a very general BLP, and I think we have a good community for making a decision. --(AfadsBad (talk) 18:11, 20 September 2013 (UTC))

I assure you I will comment there in the next 24 hours. --John (talk) 18:14, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I now understand completely why you acted the way you did (not forgiving the dumbass remark). You were left with nothing else to do, and clearly People supporters have no intention of going with consensus and will interfere with deciding it. What else could you do? --(AfadsBad (talk) 22:26, 20 September 2013 (UTC)) --(AfadsBad (talk) 22:26, 20 September 2013 (UTC))

I have now commented. Based on the exchange above, my "dumbass" remark was thoroughly warranted, but I have apologised anyway because it is not my policy to comment on editors and their abilities or lack thereof. --John (talk) 17:17, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Greetings and...

Greetings John. From one "bear of very little brain" to another, and appealing to you in your role as WikiGnome rather than admin., I'd be grateful for clarification re your edit summary here. It's not that I disagree with your edit, it's just that I'm a bit disconcerted 'cos I would have accepted, by default and AGF, both the Mail and the Standard as "reliable" sources – not, I hasten to add 'cos I consider them as such... – but because they are major players in the mass media. I'd be grateful for some guidance – no hurry – as to where I can find out a bit more about this, i.e., is there an "official" list around here that I can check out? Is it tacit? Consensus? Instinctive (as in gut feeling)? Cheers (and, in yr dual role as admin. & WikiGnome, thnks for being out there). --Technopat (talk) 19:38, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the query. WP:BLPSOURCES prevents us using tabloids like the Mail and the Standard as sources on living people. There may be individual exceptions to this, but generally if something is worth recording on Misplaced Pages, a better source will have reported on it. --John (talk) 19:46, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for reply. Sticking to British examples, your link leads to tabloid journalism – an article which is, BTW, pretty lousily referenced – which mentions "the former News of the World" as well as "The Sun, the Daily Star, the Daily Mirror, the Daily Record and the Daily Sport," (red tops) "and distinguishes them from the Daily Express and Daily Mail". But no mention of the Standard. Again, I'm not challenging your call but, at the risk of converting this into a forum, I'm simply looking for solid arguments with which to hone my own judgement. In other words, while we are all likely to "know" (instinctively?) what can/should be considered reliable sources in our own culture/language, failing some sort of politically incorrect/unviable "official Misplaced Pages blacklist of generally unreliable sources", it's not so easy when checking references to English-language publications from other continents. A case in point is the proliferation of articles related to Indian politicians, Bollywood films, etc., which raise sourcing issues. (These examples are by no means isolated cases.) Regards, --Technopat (talk) 22:12, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, you're not the first to be confused by this link to a lousy and unreferenced article. Numerous discussions have firmly established that the Mail and Standard are tabloids, which accords with one's knowledge of them. --John (talk) 22:15, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

AN notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:21, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Gee, thanks. What happened to asking me about these edits here, or even looking at them in detail, before raising it for central discussion? --John (talk) 22:22, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, John, I thought that there had been sufficient discussion before on these issues to bypass that step, but if you feel it would be fruitful, I'll remove the AN topic and talk to you.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:33, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I would prefer that, as I don't think the edits I made today resemble the ones being discussed at AN/I last week, as they do not involve links to the People but sources which are unambiguously tabloid in nature. --John (talk) 22:36, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I've removed it from AN. Just an aside to lighten things up. Right after I posted at AN, I notified you. At least I thought I had. In fact, I notified myself. If another editor hadn't seen it, I would probably have been taken to task for failing to notify you. First time I've ever done that.

I'm aware of the fact that you are not removing People sources, but you are doing the same thing you did before, just with other sources. Am I wrong that you are doing so purely based on the sources themselves without regard to the material that is being sourced? If we're going to have a bright-line rule that, as an example, The Daily Mirror can never be used as a source in BLP articles, no matter what it is sourced for, then I think we need to change BLP policy to reflect that. The same would be true for the other sources. It would be like a BLP blacklist in addition to the already-existing spam blacklist. If that's what you want, then you should propose that as a policy change. Otherwise, unless you're doing this selectively, it doesn't seem reasonable to me.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:47, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

That is funny, and no harm done. I think I am being pretty selective; look at this as an example of some of the unsuitable material I've removed. I've been removing controversial material sourced only to tabloids for a good while now, and it's never been seriously questioned before. The idea of a BLP blacklist isn't a bad one; it might put some of the confusion to rest. --John (talk) 22:51, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(Was thinking about the AN thread before Bbb23 reverted it.) The handful of removals I looked at looked good but they do resemble the previous ones as far as the edit summaries go. I think it would save everyone some aggravation if John included an explicit reference to wp:blpsources in the summary so that editors not familar with the background have a place to start.NE Ent 22:57, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

List of unreliable sources would be good but I think it should be manual not techie like the spam-blacklist. Do ya'll think these periodicals should be allowed as secondary sources? NE Ent 23:00, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I've ordered two dozen hot wings and a couple of pitchers of beers for you all. Drmies (talk) 23:03, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Some OJ for the boring California boy, please, Drmies.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:12, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

@John, let's assume for the moment that your changes (there were a lot of them) to the Mandelson article were justifiable. What about this edit to Kate Winslet? Specifically, the material you removed about her parents and quotes from her about them and about her early life? That doesn't seem controversial to me. It's not the most innocuous material I can imagine (e.g., "I like volleyball") but nor is it like accusations of homosexuality. As a second point, if you're going to remove things selectively, then you should change your edit summary to something like "removing controversial material cited to low-quality sources", at least for the part where you remove the material in addition to the source.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:11, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Your block of User:LudicrousTripe

I have unblocked this user. You were clearly in a content dispute with them at the time you made the block, and so are considered WP:INVOLVED. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:46, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

• John, I agree with you on the revert of that Armani tripe, and I agree with Beeblebrox on the unblock. Best to go through proper channels... Drmies (talk) 00:27, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• I have so many damned channels on my cable TV box that I accidentally watched the LSU-Auburn game for a moment. Fortunately, I switched as soon as I realized (sort of) what it was.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:36, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

That seems pretty retarded. This is a "content dispute"? Seriously? --John (talk) 08:24, 22 September 2013 (UTC)