This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Duchamps comb (talk | contribs) at 18:18, 27 December 2007 (→Talk:Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 18:18, 27 December 2007 by Duchamps comb (talk | contribs) (→Talk:Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)December 2007
|
Pain in the Ass Star | |
| For consistently being a pain in the ass. Providing quality edit-wars for Fascists throughout Misplaced Pages.
December 2007 |
Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. You may not know that Misplaced Pages has a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Using different styles throughout the encyclopedia, as you did to Moneybomb, makes it harder to read. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. — HelloAnnyong 16:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Please do not delete content from pages on Misplaced Pages, as you did to Moneybomb, without explaining the reason for the removal in the edit summary. Unexplained removal of content does not appear constructive, and your edit has been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox for test edits. Thank you. — HelloAnnyong 16:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey. I noticed you're not using any citation templates when you reference articles. In the future, please use the citation templates listed at WP:CIT. Thanks. — HelloAnnyong 22:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Moneybomb. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. — HelloAnnyong 23:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Tea Party amount
Welcome to Misplaced Pages! I'm a giant Paul fan myself, but you'll notice there are a lot of folks who will hold you to strict neutrality here, so be careful. It is my understanding the campaign announced $6.0 million actually raised even though the widget went up $6.4 million in the 24 hours. The $.4 million in offline receipts was not necessarily received on 11/16, and (being a Sunday) probably wasn't, given the campaign's statement; we have no source that it was in fact received 11/16 (HNN does not address this, relying only on the widget number). While we have sources for both $6.0 and $6.4, we should either state it as a conflict, or resolve the conflict unarguably. IMHO the evidence favors sticking with the $6.0, but if you want to use some neutral wording like "between $6 million and $6.4 million", that'd work with the sources cited. But we may not favor one number in the light of a conflicting number without resolving the conflict. Anyway, as a new editor, you would do very well for yourself to demonstrate your neutrality by picking some compromise version (or going right back to the $6.0) before someone else does. Trust me, that's a lot better than trying to defend a pro-Paul edit in the face of conflicting sources. I'll wait to see how you handle it, but I might step in tomorrow if nothing happens. Thanks! John J. Bulten (talk) 22:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'm serious, they will come after you if you keep it up, it will not help the "improvement of Misplaced Pages" to fight this battle on the article page itself. Your Ambinder source says $6.6 million, not $6.4 or $6.0. When you have conflicting numbers, don't insist on one of them without talking it out or demonstrating unarguable proof. Obviously only one of them is correct, and we cannot presume on which one without consensus. But "over $6 million" is correct regardless. I would strongly encourage you not to fight this particular battle and instead learn useful stuff like Template:cite news instead. It would greatly help your reputation to think of a neutral way of accomplishing your goal and revert yourself accordingly. Thanks. John J. Bulten (talk) 22:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
License tagging for Image:Ronpaulblimp.jpg.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Ronpaulblimp.jpg.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Misplaced Pages uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Misplaced Pages.
For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 17:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Sign your posts!
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! — HelloAnnyong 20:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 20:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
First Warning re Moneybomb
Misplaced Pages guidelines dictate that you assume good faith in dealing with other editors. Please participate in a respectful and civil way, and assume that they are here to improve Misplaced Pages. Thank you. Your language in your edit summaries, such as this is inappropriate. Please discuss your edits civilly and remember that edit summaries are not a proper venue for discussion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Opinion on Moneybomb
I dislike editing any political articles because it usually ends up very badly. In this case, I don't mind contributing with a neutral point of view as it does help. No problem! Monsieurdl 19:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Moneybomb.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Moneybomb.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Misplaced Pages constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Muchness (talk) 01:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Adding references
Duchamps, you need to start paying attention to your referencing. This is at least the third time I've had to clean up your mess. When you add references to something, cite them properly. And if the article is already referenced in the page, just create another link to it rather than adding another ref tag. — HelloAnnyong 01:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Ron Paul Revolution
An article that you have been involved in editing, Ron Paul Revolution, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ron Paul Revolution. Thank you. --BJBot (talk) 20:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Re: AfD - Ron Paul Revolution
Thanks for letting me know. That article is a close call, but I think we should err on the side of caution for now and keep it, as I don't think we've ever seen anything as large and organized at the grassroots level as the Ron Paul campaign. And to think that we were amazed how well Howard Dean could use the Internet for campaigning back in 2004! --smileyborg (talk) 10:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Enasni (talk) 02:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008
Please do not delete content from pages on Misplaced Pages, as you did to Talk:Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008, without explaining the reason for the removal in the edit summary. Unexplained removal of content does not appear constructive, and your edit has been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox for test edits. Thank you. — HelloAnnyong 17:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
--What an Asshat...
Please read WP:CANVASS
One way to keep people from accusing you of canvassing to stack discussions is to make sure you notify people you know disagree with you. In the case of the Revolution AfD, which seems to be headed to "delete", you informed only editors you knew to be Ron Paul advocates.
I don't really care; AfD's aren't votes. But I thought you should know, it's pretty easy to tell what you're doing.
--- tqbf 03:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment. But I only contacted people who edited Ron Paul's page. I have no way of knowing if they are pro or con. Or as to their political views.--Duchamps comb (talk) 04:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Moneybomb Conspiracy?
To: — HelloAnnyong
Yeah, I saw that go by on my watchlist, but haven't had a chance to dig into it yet. I agree with you that it's getting tiring, fighting the POV-warriors there. My guess is that the increased activity is because of the weekend fundraiser. I'll try to take a look later. No matter what though, we can still wait them out, which is what I did last time. In a couple days when activity decreases, we can go in and re-neutralize the article without much fuss. :) --Elonka 22:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
To:--- tqbf
Hey. Just wanted to give you a heads-up that I've listed Moneybomb for RfC. — HelloAnnyong 16:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. I responded, but I'm going to try to disentangle myself from this article as well. --- tqbf 21:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
To: --- tqbf
- I'm not sure about that. It's certainly big with the Paul community, and this may be WP:COATRACK. But we've been down the avenue of deleting it, and it came to no consensus. I think you'd hit the same with a move. — HelloAnnyong 01:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC) + +
Hey Elonka. I know you were active on the Moneybomb page awhile ago, so I could use some help. A single-purpose account has been editing/hacking/butchering the article I'm trying to assume good faith, but the page is a mess now. I reverted it twice today already, but the page could use some help. Could you take a look at it and try to work out the kinks - or failing that, give me some advice on how to proceed? Thanks! — HelloAnnyong 22:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)