Brendan19

Welcome!

Hello, Brendan19, 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
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Rush Limbaugh

Your recent addition to this article includes a comparison of Limbaugh to "other drug offenders", a direct inference that Limbaugh is guilty of a criminal act. Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not add unreferenced negative biographical information concerning living persons to Wikipedia articles. Thank you. --Allen3 ^talk 14:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

hey allen, he agreed to a plea deal for a drug offense. thanks- Brendan19 06:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

oh allen, by the way... my stuff had plenty of reputable sources, so what were you talking about? Brendan19 08:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

While there are plenty of reputable sources that the deal occurred, all of them that I have read show that Limbaugh entered a "not guilty" plea and that no trial is scheduled to try him on the single filed charge. The reasons for Limbaugh and the District Attorney's office agreeing to the settlement have also not been revealed. As a result the assumption that Limbaugh is guilty of a drug offense is original research and ignores other possibilities that conform with the known facts. One such possibility is that Limbaugh decided the settlement was less expensive than continuing to defend his constitutional rights from a three year investigation (compare $30,000 to $35,000 in fines and fees to $500+/hour for high power lawyers) and that the other details of the settlement allowed both sides to end the ordeal with a minimal loss of face. At this time there is no way for Wikipedia to determine which possibility is closer to the truth and until reliable sources become available to clarify the situation the article needs to avoid taking a position supporting any of these possibilities. --Allen3 ^talk 13:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

i would like to point out that my "inference that limbaugh is guilty of a criminal act" made it onto the limbaugh page after considerable debate amongst many. limbaughs quote about how drug offenders should go to jail has already been removed and it should be interesting to see if limbaugh fanatics can water it down any more than it is now... 'Limbaugh has, throughout the years, condemned illegal drug use on his radio broadcast and has stated that those convicted of drug crimes should be sent to jail.[48]' the last sentence started out as... 'This deal is in contrast to what Limbaugh thought other drug offenders' punishments should be, "Drug use, some might say, is destroying this country. And we have laws against selling drugs, pushing drugs, using drugs, importing drugs. ... And so if people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up," Limbaugh said on his short-lived television show on Oct. 5, 1995. [1] [2]' lets see where it goes from here. Brendan19 13:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Three-revert rule

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Rush Limbaugh. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --Allen3 ^talk 03:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

oh alan here we go again. see above (rush limbaugh).Brendan19 (talk) 03:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

also, why only give me the 3rr warning when there were two of us making reverts? could it be that you didnt say anything to bedford because you only go after people who have different opinions than you?Brendan19 (talk) 18:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Please take the time to check the facts before making unsupported accusations of misconduct. A simple comparison of the time when I placed the warning on your talk page with the edit history for the Rush Limbaugh article shows that at the time the warning was made, you were the only person bumping up against the 3 revert rule. If you then check my edit history you will see I was not active after placing the warning till the next day. The obvious and correct answer to your question is that I did not issue the warning to Bedford was because at the time I left my computer there was no reason to do so. As to you concerns about coordinated efforts, I would advise you reflect on Wikipedia:Words of wisdom#The paradigm that there's only a cabal if you want there to be one. --Allen3 ^talk 00:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

i did check the facts and that is why i said what i said.

limbaugh edits...

(cur) (last) 03:45, 7 November 2008 Bedford (Talk | contribs) (68,736 bytes) (Undid revision 250166968 by Brendan19 (talk) I did give a reason; you're out of context besides that) (undo)

(cur) (last) 03:28, 7 November 2008 Brendan19 (Talk | contribs) (69,008 bytes) (→Prescription drug addiction: his own views on the subject are quite relevant and appropriate. i am inserting rush's own opinions- not my own. if you remove this please give a reason) (undo)

(cur) (last) 03:18, 7 November 2008 Bedford (Talk | contribs) (68,736 bytes) (Undid revision 250163996 by Brendan19 (talk) WP:UNDUE) (undo)

(cur) (last) 03:07, 7 November 2008 Brendan19 (Talk | contribs) (69,295 bytes) (Undid revision 250162879 by Bedford (talk) look at the history of this page (specifically march 4th 2007). this was a majority decis) (undo)

(cur) (last) 02:59, 7 November 2008 Bedford (Talk | contribs) (68,736 bytes) (Undid revision 250162648 by Brendan19 (talk)) (undo)

(cur) (last) 02:57, 7 November 2008 Brendan19 (Talk | contribs) (69,295 bytes) (→Prescription drug addiction: there was a big fight over this one a while ago... not sure how it got removed, but it should definitely be there.) (undo)

your edits...

21:25, 8 November 2008 (hist) (diff) Rush Limbaugh ‎ (Revert POV Apples and oranges comparison. Limbaugh has never been tried for, let alone convicted of, drug charges so adding the comparison serves no useful purpose)

21:38, 7 November 2008 (hist) (diff) Sarah Palin ‎ (→Public image: remove clear distortion of cited source. When using a quotation, the full sentence should be considered instead of just the fragment supporting the article editor's viewpoint)

19:18, 7 November 2008 (hist) (diff) Portal talk:United States Army ‎ (→Links in articles: another requested example)

17:24, 7 November 2008 (hist) (diff) Wind & Water Puzzle Battles ‎ (Fix redirect) (top)

17:18, 7 November 2008 (hist) (diff) m Neil Weste ‎ (Reverted edits by 217.37.138.57 (talk) to last version by Studerby) (top)

03:35, 7 November 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Brendan19 ‎ ( You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. )

by a "simple comparison of the time" as you suggested, i see that you warned me about being blocked, then you say you didnt see bedford's revert ten minutes later. i am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt on that even though i find it hard to believe that you would warn me and then not stick around ten minutes. so by that you would be "obvious and correct" that he had only reverted twice, but unfortunately for you it is easily seen that you were back editing @ 17:18. bedford's three edits were still within 24 hours at that point... all the way till 02:59 the next day. i also noticed that at 21:25 of the next day you made the exact same revert that bedford had been making. how would you explain that? and this time please tone down the condescension.

i would also add that the revert you and bedford attempted is the same one YOU fought for back in march of 2007. because of that i would have expected you to remember that a consensus ruled against the change you wanted. your intentions seem pretty clear.

oh and allen, lets not go on and on over this. at this time it is a moot point. i just wanted to hear why you would warn one and not the other. you gave an explanation and, while we dont agree, its not worth arguing about it. good day, sir. Brendan19 (talk) 03:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Joe the Plumber

In the interest of keeping the discussion focused on areas where we may be able to approach an agreement; would you be willing to strike/remove this comment which may just distract from leading to a working environment where we can all make progress on the article? Thanks for you consideration. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

not trying to be difficult, but why do you think that would accomplish anything? Brendan19 (talk) 07:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

It would have prevented Collect from having something to go off on a digression about rather than him having to own up to the "compromises" that he says he supports. Thats his tactic. If we keep focused on getting to areas on which we can reach consensus, his acts of disruption and tendentious editing become even more obvious. However if other editors are also not focused on the areas where we can achieve consensus the whole page degenerates. WP:TPG -- The Red Pen of Doom 13:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

maybe, but i believe he would have found a way to change topic anyway. that aside, i see your point. now that we have already gone past that do you still see a point in removing it? if so, im fine with it. Brendan19 (talk) 15:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

If you feel that striking it out will help contribute to the advancement of consensus on the article or if you feel that the continued presence is a distraction from the goal of reaching consensus on the article, sure. Otherwise it is water over the bridge. -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

water over the bridge as far as im concerned. Brendan19 (talk) 19:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

or should it be "water under the bridge"?? :-) -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

ha ha, yes it should. i was too tired to even notice. water over a bridge would be a bad thing. Brendan19 (talk) 20:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

See D&B reply on my talk page.Mattnad (talk) 18:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

You may be interested in this Talk:Joe_the_Plumber#RFC:_Career_and_LicesningMattnad (talk) 20:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

noted. glad something finally came of it. after my attempts at the admin noticeboard i thought nothing would ever stop his behavior. keep using logic, apparently it will work. thanks Brendan19 (talk) 02:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Another RFC - take a look. Mattnad (talk) 23:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Clutter

My advice was to post it to talk, not to clutter up AN3 [3] William M. Connolley (talk) 19:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

i misunderstood you then. sorry bout that. Brendan19 (talk) 20:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Collect was booted for 3RR, and has now been unbooted. Inclusionist (talk) 15:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Ambulance driver

I see your point quite clearly...in fact I've been a paramedic for 35 years, going back to almost the very beginning. In this case, however, the article is a generic one about EMS around the world, not just in North America where we work. The fact remains that there are a number of systems worldwide in which the actual job title is still 'Ambulance Driver' (India and Hong Kong, as two examples), and these people are accompanied by someone else with higher medical training. In Italy, for example, the job title translates from the Italian as 'the one who works the stretcher'. We have to overcome our own sensitivities and be inclusive. Apart from that, Wikipedia style guidelines are very specific about No Point of View (NPOV), and so, the statement cannot stand as it is. Besides, the article is about EMS, not about what upsets those who work in the field. In my system, the term EMT is not used, and paramedics are distinguished by training level. We generally find it quite offensive if someone even puts EMT in front of P, since our entry level medics have considerably more training than those in a great many US states, and what passes for EMT training is normally about 1,000 hours less than we train our entry level people for. Still, you don't see anything in the article about Canadian medics being upset by being called EMTs, because it isn't really relevant to the article content. Search NPOV, and you'll see what I mean. In the meantime, there is a small group of us from around the world who have established the Emergency Medicine and EMS Task Force here. A lot of the work involved is trying to take the mass of Stub and Start articles that people have tossed in here, and turn them into useful research tools for our peers, and for those who are studying to join our profession. If you are interested, we'd be most pleased to have you join us. I'll come back in a minute and add the link. Cheers! Emrgmgmtca (talk) 11:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: RFC at John McCain presidential campaign, 2008

Hello Brendan19,

This is in regard to your comment on the RFC at John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 that you made on Dec 14. Since posting your comment, I've made changes to my version of the section taking into account opinions such as yours -- mainly aiming for a minimal contribution. I was wondering if you were willing to review my current version compared to the RFC initiator's version and chose which one you think best fulfills the perspective of your comment. Thanks! --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 05:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello Brendan19 -- the above user is canvassing to try to gain for support for his version of a disputed page. That's fine, but he's misrepresenting the version I support; the version I currently support after weeks of arguing and compromise from my end is this one. Thanks for your input. csloat (talk) 18:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Marcus Schrenker

Do you have a reference for Piper "Malibu"? If so, please post it.842U (talk) 10:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

yes, but the references are already in the article. i didnt check them all, but #s 14 and 16 both mention the malibu and i am sure more sources also mention it. Brendan19 (talk) 17:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

RfC?

I see you have been arguing with User:Collect tedious edits on Joe the Plumber, as many, many editors have. Would you endorse an RfC against User:Collect? He has been edit warring at both Joe the Plumber, Business Plot, fascism using the same tired tactics to revert well referenced material. Ikip (talk) 03:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

jtp edit warring seems to have stopped due to the extended hold on editing. business plot does seem to show a one man crusade on the part of collect, but why not start with the fact that he is breaking the 3 revert rule? thats one way to apply the brakes. if that doesnt work or if he tries the slow edit war then i would definitely support some further action. im not very good at admin stuff. maybe ask Tan | 39. he is an admin and he has experience w/ collect. remember, it takes at least two to edit war... try not to do it yourself no matter how frustrating things can be for you. good luck. also, i dont think he can add the npov tag just because he disagrees. there needs to be a discussion about the neutrality. Brendan19 (talk) 04:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

thank you for your great suggestions. Ikip (talk) 05:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

no problem. keep me up to date on what happens... after looking into recent editing i saw quite a bit of edit warring. its a shame, but now i think something should be done. its a pattern of behavior that i guess may never end. Brendan19 (talk) 19:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

iKip has created the RFC [4]Mattnad (talk) 11:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I added new evidence: [5]. Please review your endorsement. If you still endorse the RFC, leave your endorsement. Phoenix of9 (talk) 00:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you move this [6] to talk page? You cant edit Collects response section. Phoenix of9 (talk) 18:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

confusion?

I was going to ask that you include that under "Proposed Solutions: referral for ANI" but I see you already did that. Thanks. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 05:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

no problem Brendan19 (talk) 05:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Brendan19. You have new messages at Ikip's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

re: blame?

An RfC may bring close scrutiny on all involved editors... An RfC cannot impose involuntary sanctions on a user, such as blocking or a topic ban; it is a tool for developing voluntary agreements and colleting information The goal is dispute resolution through working together, not outside punishment. Some examples of impossible outcomes

We get to revert whatever this editor does if we don't like it.

The editor is forced to apologize against his/her will.

The editor is forced to re-write This article to our specifications.

The editor will be blocked.

The editor will be permanently topic-banned.

I based this comment on a pattern exhibited by all those involved of trying to "punish" Collect and smear him rather than actually breaking down and having a few frank conversations about it. I'm sorry if you all feel that Collect is such a horrible editor, but is this circus really necessary? If the purpose of this RfC was topic bans and blocks or forcing Collect to "face the music," than it shouldn't have been filed. All this has done is guarantee that Collect won't respond to any of you, an action that quite frankly I think is normal considering the way this RfC was conducted (Ikip and other's searching his history for possible evidence and probably canvassing) and some of the blatant misrepresentations and false information presented (quite a bit of it as a result of Ikip's researching). So in answer to your question, I place blame for this whole incident squarely on the shoulders of all involved, since it takes two to tango, and it seems that all involved had moments of heated discussion and are not entirely blameless. Soxwon (talk) 18:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

And with regards to this question, arbcom is the next and final step. Soxwon (talk) 18:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

thanks, but i actually asked daedalus and he responded. your comments are interesting considering the context. i was telling collect to stop spreading lies about me. that was my "accusatory attitide" and i see no problem with it. feel free to look into his accusations of me being some sort of puppet and also his claims that i have had "multiple" "repeated" 3rr warnings. when you see that it is total crap you can maybe understand why i will not stand for it. dont try to use this specific exchange between me and collect as an example of some overall pattern by many to punish collect. this is about him making up offensive lies about me. plain and simple. and for that i place all the blame on collect.

also, this RfC is meant for comments on collect- not comments on others. certainly we are all open to scrutiny, but that is not the point of this. so i reiterate, this is about collect and it should remain that way. he is trying to take the focus off of him to confuse the whole thing, but its an obvious ploy. an RfC is not about multiple editors reaching an agreement- that sounds more like mediation for an article. this RfC is about one editor. you seem to misunderstand that.

also, i take issue with you claiming that all are not entirely blameless. frankly, you dont know what you are talking about. when collect slings mud at me (im a puppet or i have all these 3rr warnings) and he and i both know it isnt true the blame falls on him. when i point out to him that he is wrong and he continues to make these claims... the blame falls on him. this is not a tango and i am not taking part in slinging mud. i am defending my good name and there is nothing wrong with that.

also, there is nothing wrong with saying that collect should face the music. that simply meant that he should listen to what people are saying here instead of leaving some alice in wonderland quote and supposedly taking a wikibreak. part of this RfC was to let him hear peoples concerns so we could make progress. if he runs away when he hears things he doesnt like then he is not facing the music and, thereby, not helping the situation. i agree that sometimes people went too far, but that is on them and doesnt excuse collects actions. Brendan19 (talk) 21:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The double standard here is amazing. It's all about Collect, yet he is not allowed to shed light on how he perceives his accusors or some alterior motives to show he's not at fault? When half the evidence is subjective and another part is blatant misrepresentation, he probably feels the same way you do now. You say I have no idea what I'm talking about, yet you endorse evidence from a user who has submitted evidence from things he knows nothing about and then try to call Collect on it. You characterize Collect as being the one with the problem and needing to change what he does, but it seems to be a blatant misrepresentation of a ongoing disagreement with multiple parties at fault. You and everyone else playing innocent is as annoying as it is detrimental to the process. I really see no difference between what Collect has posted and what Ikip posted, mainly b/c Ikip has proven many times to be careless with the evidence. Soxwon (talk) 21:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

collect can shed all the light he wants... i just dont want him making up things about me. you missed my point. i am calling collect on what he has said about me. in this instance i am not speaking to anything else. there is no double standard. you still seem not to know what you are talking about. i endorsed the charges by ikip based on what i saw and i said that not all seemed egregious. i did not endorse everything ikip said, but these are the generalizations he put that i agreed with (and he did show some examples that were valid and some that were not)...

"Personal attacks and lack of Assuming good faith... Inability to work with other editors, threatening other editors, if Collect does not get his way...WP:LEGAL WP:LIBEL threats, WP:Wikilawyering...Silly arguments, example of tedious behavior, and finding NPA when there is none. Sensitivitivy of Collect, everything is a personal attack against him... Collect removing well referenced sections...Collect's selective use of policy to suit his own POV, ignoring policy when it is convenient"

i still agree with those statements even if some of the examples are inaccurate. as for you seeing no difference between ikip and collect...when ikip posts lies about me the way collect has then i will bring it up with ikip. until then that doesnt have anything to do with me. and what do you mean by "playing innocent?" are you accusing me of being guilty of something? im not even going to ask what because its not pertinent. in fact, please feel free to drop this with me. once again... i am involved in this RfC to get something done about collect. i am not here to argue with you. this is silly. Brendan19 (talk) 21:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Next step

Yes, I would say either ANI or Arbcom. ArbCom might work, as there is evidence in this RFC that you tried dispute resolution. Good luck.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 19:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

ok, thanks. Brendan19 (talk) 21:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Saw your note

I saw your note on another page, have you ever tried to use:

{{Talkback|Brendan19}}

produces:

Hello, Brendan19. You have new messages at Brendan19's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ikip (talk) 21:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

yeah, but its just as easy to just write it out. your way does look better. thanks though. Brendan19 (talk) 01:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I was wrong to editwar

For which I take blame. Collect (talk) 13:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration re: Collect

I think the following editors should also be notified of this arbitration because they all contributed "outside views" to the RfC, although they were primarily discussing their own experiences: User talk:Dlabtot, User talk:Threeafterthree, User talk:Colonel Warden, User talk:207.237.33.36, User talk:Ratel, User talk:Lyonscc, User talk:SB_Johnny, User talk:SluggoOne, and User talk:Aervanath. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

i dont know the rules, but feel free to notify them if you like. i notified a lot of people and i dont feel like doing more. at this point i just figure that people will see this and come comment if they want. i have heard from at least one person who hasnt commented yet that he or she may not be able to comment because of being involved in mediation w/ collect. this seems unfair to our process, but i dont know what can be done about it. Brendan19 (talk) 04:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I have now notified them all. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

did you

see my message from a few days ago? --Brendan19 (talk) 04:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

yes, I read all messages. I don't feel comfortable saying more. Ikip (talk) 07:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

ok. i was hoping you would remark on the arbcom request since you were so vocal during collect's RfC, but if you cant- you cant. cheers--Brendan19 (talk) 07:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Standing request

Please advise re:any future administrative actions that you might become aware of pertaining to disruptive editing. I make this request to forego any repercussions you may encounter regarding canvassing. --Buster7 (talk) 03:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: please note

my latest addition to [7]. i would greatly appreciate a specific response to what i said about collect violating 1rr and collect continuing his problematic behavior since the RfC. --Brendan19 (talk) 05:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

why havent you responded? --Brendan19 (talk) 20:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

We just need to see some evidence presented as to whether the problems discussed in the request for comment have continued or not. You've given a list of people who agree with you, but we cannot assess whether there are ongoing problems based on mere assertions, we need to be presented with evidence. For example, if there has been continued edit warring, can you point to some diffs of edit warring? --bainer (talk) 05:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

if you look at what i said you will notice that i didnt just give a list. i mentioned the ongoing problems that the four deuces has had w/ collect. you can look at the four deuces comment to see the examples of the problems. i also provided two diffs which show things collect said about me which are absolutely false and are nothing more than mud slinging personal attacks. the fact that he has ignored my requests to address his false statements demonstrates an ongoing problem to me. he apologized for edit warring, but he has many more issues such as the attacks and false accusations, ididnthearthat, pov pushing and other disruptive editing.

on another note, what do you say to the fact that collect has been on his best behavior since the RfC and during this arbcom request (the apology came w/ the request), but it probably wont last. what will we do once he starts going back to his more blatantly disruptive editing? also, some people havent commented because they cannot because they are locked in mediation w/ collect at this very moment. what is your advice for when we see more problems w/ collect? start another RfC? this one certainly didnt work. come back to arbcom? just for some to say we are on the edge of needing help. if not here or there, where can we fix the problem? and to be clear, i would be shocked if this were the last time we have serious problems with this editor.--Brendan19 (talk) 18:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

My only contact with User:Collect since the arbitration started has been on the Talk:Fascism page, and I referenced the many sections that have been created. Those sections speak for themselves - I see it as Collect throwing out numerous references (12!) that he obviously has not read and being argumentative. However I also noted that he came into dispute with User:Lapsed Pacifist since May 20 and filed an edit warring notice against him. Subsequently he filed a 3RR, which was rejected because Lapsed Pacifist had made only two edits. Since then Collect appears to be concentrating on giving him a hard time, reversing his edits, complaining on his talk page and following up his comments on other talk pages with disagreeing comments. However it's hard to follow because they both make numerous edits. I will contact Lapsed Pacifist and see if he can help. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I reviewed Collect's recent disputes with Lapsed Pacifist:

He reported him for edit-warring but it was dismissed because he had only made two edits.[8]

He voted for deletion of an article Lapsed Pacifist created.[9]

He also made the following reversals.

Dick Cheney - Collect reverses a minor edit by Lapsed Pacifist three minutes after he makes it.[10]

Rush Limbaugh - Collect reverses a minor edit by Lapsed Pacifist 1 1/2 hours after he makes it.[11]

Business Plot - Collect reverses a minor edit by Lapsed Pacifist three minutes after he makes it.[12]

Business Plot - Collect reverses the same minor edit by Lapsed Pacifist 3 hours after he makes it.[13]

Business Plot - Collect reverses a similar edit by Lapsed Pacifist 10 minutes after he makes it.[14]

Business Plot - Collect reverses a similar edit by Lapsed Pacifist 13 minutes after he makes it.[15]

The Four Deuces (talk) 23:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

bainer: also, it seems possible that as yet you may not have reviewed the second paragraph here [16]; in particular the ref. to what I perceive as ongoing WP:PAs by the gentleman during his RfC/U -- accusations that continued despite repeated requests for diffs to support the (unsupportable) attacks. (In response he not only failed to supply any diffs, of course, but continued with his accusations.) The exchanges are documented here [17] and here [18] . I hope this helps. Writegeist (talk) 23:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Collect

Please see my comments at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Collect. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish...

You haven't touched Conservatism prior to the RfC on Collect and the comment you responded is now 3 months old. Exactly why did you decide to join the discussion now? Soxwon (talk) 21:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

i was interested in the topic. you and the other editor seemed to have your numbers wrong so i gave the actual numbers. do you have a problem with that?--Brendan19 (talk) 21:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

No, but after getting accused of meat-puppetry in a clueless stunt by Ikip on the Conservatism page already, I'm more than a little leery of editors from Collect's RfC suddenly appearing at pages he's edited and commenting on ancient convos. Your interest seems rather abrupt. Soxwon (talk) 22:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be best if we were to start over. I'm ready to put this whole business behind me. Soxwon (talk) 22:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

sounds great. happy editing to you.--Brendan19 (talk) 22:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Brendan19. You have new messages at Nburden's talk page.
Message added 22:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nburden ^(T) 22:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Brendan19. You have new messages at Nburden's talk page.
Message added 05:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nburden ^(T) 05:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Sarah Palin

Thank you for your concern about edit warring on Sarah Palin. Let me explain, I am the editor who added the Tea Party section to the Sarah Palin article and the first source that came up when I did a Google search at the time of the speech was the New York Times article.

Later, when other editors came along and changed her speech, it seemed to me to be either mocking or racist. This was my concern with changing what Palin said, and I was also curious as to why people were so intent on making sure that this verbatim rendering was added to the article.

There is no edit warring on my part, but rather a genuine concern that Palin, as a white woman, not be singled out for her sex or her race. Where I am from, people very often use accents or speech stylings to abuse others. This is still often seen in the American South were the speech of Black Americans is often rendered in a negative way, as well as the mocking of the accents of Midwestern Americans of all races and ethnicities.

When I read the New York Times article, I believed this is exactly what was said. In looking over all of this again, I can see where the New York Times, because it is a great paper, knew exactly what Palin said and how she'd said it, but choose a higher road.Malke2010 21:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... I didn't, and still don't, see that this has anything to do with race or gender. If you're concerned about her being treated differently because of either I would say that gender discrimination is valid sometimes, but I doubt that racism is going to be a problem for her. Happy editing to you. --Brendan19 (talk) 09:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry

My little brother got onto my account when i was looking up rush limbaugh and I had no idea i did that till i went back and looked at my "Contributions page" thanks for telling me i will be more careful —Preceding unsigned comment added by TJMcDJ (talk • contribs) 16:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The funny thing is i was reading about Rush Limbaugh's addiction cause i had no clue, i had to use the restroom. i came back. the section was gone. And the nine inch nails thing was also my little brother he asked me if he could check out wiki i said sure. i didnt think he was stupid enough to edit. SO sorry and i hope SineBot does not edit this because i sign my papers!!! --TJM^cDJ 18:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TJMcDJ (talk • contribs)

Fair enough, I guess you can't even trust family these days. --Brendan19 (talk) 01:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I know... what world do we live in :\

--TJM^cDJ ^(Talk) 15:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't insult another editor

How DARE you call my edit nonsense? It may have not been sourced properly but it is an OBVIOUS response to what's been going on there. And there's plenty of sources to back it up. For you to unfairly INSULT me like that violates ENUMERABLE wikipedia rules of civility starting with ASSUME GOOD FAITH. Kindly apologize profusely and take your TRASHY comment off my Talk Page. Thank you. I will assume you will do the right thing. If not, I ask you no longer continue editing at Wikipedia unti you learn the rules. My edit will be reinstated, Should you remove it again, you will be in danger of violating the 3r rule in which case I may have to open up an RFM against you. 68.41.55.171 (talk) 00:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, your edit was obviously a response (probably to your misguided political leanings), but if you actually read what I said you see that I did not call your edit "nonsense." I said it could be misconstrued as such. ENUMERABLE means countable. I think you meant innumerable, which means 'very many.' If you have "plenty of sources to back it up," then please put your "edit" back in the Alvin Greene article (with those sources, of course). I hope you don't hold your breath for an apology from me because you won't get one. I have done nothing wrong. I merely pointed out to you why your "edit" was so quickly removed. As for me being in danger of violating the "3r" [sic] rule for removing your "edit", I must say that you are quite ignorant of how that rule works. You see, I haven't even edited the Alvin Greene article, so I never removed your "edit" and I am, therefore, not in any danger of violating 3RR. Also, you seem to be ignorant of what a Request For Mediation (RFM) is. It has to do with content of an article, and is, therefore, not something you can "open up... against" me. Perhaps you should learn what these rules are before you accuse me of violating them. --Brendan19 (talk) 01:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, your reversal was a response to YOUR misguided political leanings. Source has been added. APOLOGY NOT accepted. I'm saying this as nicely as I can. Your arrogant smug attitude is in violation of Wikipedia rules. I know you think you can get away with it cause you have back up from your fellow...er...misguided editors, but you can't break the rules. A source has been added. Quit harassing me- Another violation.68.41.55.171 (talk) 01:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Remember to remain cool Brendan :). Prodego ^talk 02:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Remain cool? No problem, but I had to laugh when the anon said, "APOLOGY NOT accepted" even though I didn't give anything that could remotely be considered an apology. Maybe the block will mellow him/her out a little. --Brendan19 (talk) 04:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I love the way Prodego says 'be cool smiley face' to brendan yet reads me The Riot Act. All Documented to show that there's no bias at Wikipedia at all. None whatsoever! haha Nice try gaming the system guys. I wasn't engaged in an edit war. You were! Just cause you find 2 of your liberal friends to come help you VANDALIZE a perfectly legit edit, it doesn't mean you aren't violating the 3r rule. As for my apology not accepted crack. I always knew liberals weren't bright enough to get irony. This helps confirm it. 68.41.55.171 (talk) 03:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, it must be liberal bias that keeps your version of "reality" separate from everyone else's. Haha! Just because things aren't how you want them to be doesn't mean that a liberal bias is involved. It's called reality, try and accept it or you are in for one long angry life. Now as to your ignorant accusations, I'm going to repeat this (which I am surprised that I need to do, since you are obviously so much smarter than I am)... I DID NOT REVERT YOU ON THE ALVIN GREENE ARTICLE. I HAVE MADE ZERO EDITS TO THAT ARTICLE. As such, it would be extremely difficult for me to have violated ANY rule on that page. I tried to help you with this edit, but I can see that it has done no good. Wikipedia is not a battleground and if you continue your antagonistic, POV pushing you will soon find yourself blocked. --Brendan19 (talk) 04:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• Mr. IP--Please distinguish between Brendan commenting on your edit, and commenting on you. Seems to me he wasn't making a personal attack. He was criticizing your edit, which is not considered uncivil.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Careful, Epeefleche. The anon is documenting all of this 'liberal bias' and it could wind up on your permanent record. Of course, I have to wonder what all this documentation looks like. It may contain complete sentences or it might just be full of more fragments like this, "As for my apology not accepted crack."--Brendan19 (talk) 07:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

For your helpful comment. There appears to be a divide between those who have experienced disruption (or looked at the edit history carefully enough to note it), and those who make broad comments based on difficult-to-evaluate reasons that are contrary to the perceivable facts.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

More thanks

Thank you for restoring Charles Lindbergh to category:antisemitism. A few Wikipedeans developed the idea that it is okay to delete people like Lindbergh from the category. Their reasoning is far from clear. One member of this group deleted Wilhelm Marr, the man who coined the term. I restored Wilhelm Marr. I would appreciate it if you would join me in watching for additional deletions from that category.Iss246 (talk) 21:10, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Same here re. the category. And good to see you around again. Writegeist (talk) 21:59, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)