Malvenue

"Life's a journey, not a destination." ~ Aerosmith

Welcome to Wikipedia

Hello, Malvenue! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Malvenue (talk) 18:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images • create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia • Article Creation Wizard Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Warnings

Note: Always remember to substitute user warning templates. For help on user warnings, see the WikiProject on User Warnings.
Older warnings may have been removed, but are still visible in the page history.
[Admin: block | unblock / Info: contribs | page moves | block log | block list]

November 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Mark Levin. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. The edit(s) in question are as follows: [1] --4wajzkd02 (talk) 23:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Mark Levin has been reverted, as it appears to have removed content from the page without explanation. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Nezzadar ^[SPEAK] 04:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

{{helpme}}:Thank you for helping me out. Recent edits have not shown an Reason for Edit field as I encountered last week when doing some minor edits, so I gave my reasons on the discussion page. Can you think of any reason why that field would not appear for me when making changes? And thank you for the ~ comment, I had been cutting/pasting my info in after saving the edit. Malvenue (talk) 05:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I can't think of any particular reason the summary text box would not appear, except for a temporary glitch. If it happens again, try refreshing the page to see if it comes back. Also, I notice your query seems to be directed at the previous poster. When addressing a question to a particular user, you should not use the {{helpme}} template, which is intended to get the attention of any user. Try posting a {{talkback}} template to User:Nezzadar's talk page if you want to alert them to your message here. AJCham 06:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you have an "Edit summary" box now instead? This is the same thing as "Reason for edit". Note that the edit summary field does not appear when you start a new section on a talk page though.--Commander Keane (talk) 06:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem appears to have resolved itself as it hasn't occured now in two weeks. Should I remove this section from my talk page or will the bots do it eventually?

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Mark Levin. 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 several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Mark Levin RfC Text

Your text currently reads...

Are the David Frum and David Brooks quotes referenced at [1] demonstrate notability...

Hopefully you note the problem. JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed it earlier today but didn't think it worth changing the RFC for a silly grammatical error. Thanks. Malvenue (talk) 20:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Very well. BTW, I have removed my "housekeeping" P.S. which I probably should have posted here in the first place. You might want to consider deleting your response as well. JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Hi, if you continue to attack me personally, as you did here, I will request that you be blocked from editing. — goethean ॐ 18:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I have made no personal attacks on you and have sourced the personal attacks you have made upon me on the related page for any interested parties to peruse. Unlike you however I did not issue a warning on your talk page and instead let them slide as simply empassioned statements. Perhaps I was incorrect to do so. Malvenue (talk) 19:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Citations

Apparently you have confused a wikilink to the name of the program with an external link to the program itself. There is no external link and none is required. Please ask if you have any further questions about citations and the difference between wikilinks and external links. We have plenty of things to edit war about on that article, there's no need to add more, especially simple things that can be easily cleared up. Gamaliel (talk) 20:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The citation for the latest edit you included (currently #16) refers to Morning Meeting, MSNBC, October 5, 2009. Linking to Morning Meeting does not show any evidence of the comment you added. I'd like to read it for myself, as I'm sure the average WP user would. --Malvenue (talk) 20:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Look at citation 15. There are two links. The first is an external link to this article. The second is a wikilink to the publication Newsweek. It is clear that the citation is referring to the Newsweek article here and not the Wikipedia article here. If there article were not online for free, then the external link would be absent. Would you then think that the Newsweek article cited was at the Wikipedia article Newsweek? This is the case for the television program Morning Meeting. The program itself is cited, not the Wikipedia article, just as is the case with citations 10 and 11. Gamaliel (talk) 20:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

So you're saying because it's a television program it doesn't need a citation other than what you've provided because we AGF that the person making the link isn't lying, correct? Others have objected to that premise but for the record it took me one 10 second Google search to find the video you're referencing. Guess where? --Malvenue (talk) 20:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

That is all that is required to be a citation, just as the author, title, and date of publication would be all you need for a book citation. AGF is part of it, but verifiability is satisfied because people can get books from a library or use a database to access a transcript of a television program. (I recommend the database Lexis/Nexis, your local librarian can show you how to use it.) Links are not required. Gamaliel (talk) 21:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your detailed explanation. It's too bad you can't act this civilly all the time. --Malvenue (talk) 21:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. I wonder how I can retain any composure in the face of your behavior. But, for what it's worth, your appreciation is appreciated. If you would act equally reasonably when it came to other aspects of this article, much of our current dilemma would end. Gamaliel (talk) 22:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe I have been bending over backwards in the face of unrelenting sarcasm, insults and generally poor behaviour by yourself and others. I believe reasonable people can have reasonable disagreements but that doesn't make them "evil". I honestly think you've gone out of your way to be abrasive and insulting and given that you're an adminstrator here I find that shocking. --Malvenue (talk) 00:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Alright, prove it. Where have you bent over backwards? You haven't given an inch. You can't even answer a direct, basic question or propose a "compromise" that doesn't violate RS, BLP, and your own demands. I'd like to compromise, I'm practically begging for one, but I'm not willing to compromise on policy or a consistent standard. I don't see how you're willing to accept either one. Gamaliel (talk) 01:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Please bear with me because I'm going to ramble a bit. I know your motivation is based on disliking the subject. Your behaviour proves that and if you're honest with yourself you'll admit it to yourself if not to anyone else. I think you are capable of putting that aside however and editing the article and coming to a consensus in good faith, in fact I'm sure of it. We all have our point of view on things but WP is not supposed to be the place to extol them, right? You know I have an issue with Frum specifically because of his personal blood feud with Levin (and vice-versa of course) but I *have* stated in talk that I don't think "all criticism should be scrubbed" as you and others have accused me of. I just want the criticism to be fair and to not overwhelm the article as per WP:BLP. I happen to strongly believe in the neutral voice concept, something that is sorely lacking in the overwhelming majority of today's media. WP can and should be a place where people can go for facts without editorializing. That is the reason I crafted my compromise statement as fairly as I could. It allows for the criticism and puts the Levin response in context. We can quibble on each and every word but isn't that really the fairest solution? People can game the sources and policies in order to advance their own ideology but in the end, isn't it supposed to be all about getting the article right? Levin has been criticized by people whom he feels are being used by a liberal media. Period. That's a fact, the statement isn't really in serious dispute (note I did not state his response as fact) and that's all that really needs to go in the article. Do you disagree with any of this? --Malvenue (talk) 01:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Since we're attempting a new start, that's as good as an excuse as any to unindent. I'm going to take your comments in the spirit they were intended, and will respond in a like manner. None of this is intended to be adversarial or antagonistic, though I will be blunt at times. Fair?

You don't know what my motivation is. In my experience, a lot of people have accused me of having various motivations, including being an operative of several different intelligence agencies (seriously!) and political organizations. All of them have been wrong, and all of them have been antagonistic trolls, and most have eventually been banned from Wikipedia. In truth, I'd rather be editing articles that have nothing to do with politics - comic strips, 20th century art, poetry, preferably - but I also have a commitment to this encyclopedia. For this encyclopedia to be truly neutral we must represent the subjects warts an all. Overly positive is just as bad as overly negative. And I apply this to every article I edit, regardless of political affiliation or whether or not the person is my idol or a stranger to me. I can point you to many articles where I fought for negative things to be included in the article of a Democrat and fought to remove negative things from the article of a conservative. I'm fighting for this because I like Wikipedia, not because I hate Mark Levin. You may "know" how I feel about Mark Levin, but your artificial construct bears no relation to the reality where I had never heard of Mark Levin before editing this article, where I have never heard his show or even his voice. I run into this problem quite a bit, actually. I target wholesale deletion of criticism by a drive by editor, which is how I got drawn into this article a year or two ago, and then all of a sudden I become the subject's greatest anti-fan.

I think a lot of the problem here is that you have this artificial construct of me. But then you would have some cause to say the same for me. I can only judge by your actions, and while you say that you are interested in fairness and neutrality, your past actions have not led others to believe that this is the case. But I am not interested in rehashing that, so let's assume that you actually are interested in these things, and I'm sure you'll be willing to assume the case for me, whatever your opinions of things that have been said or done.

In regards to the wording of your proposed compromise, I don't think that it's the statements themselves are in serious dispute. But just because they are likely entirely true doesn't mean the matter ends there. After all, a lot of the criticism that has been removed from the article was entirely true as well, in the sense that those critics actually said those things. But the editors deemed them unworthy of inclusion for certain reasons. The crux my dispute is that you and those editors are entirely unwilling to apply those very same reasons to people other than Levin, and I can't seem to get a straight answer out of anyone why that is acceptable. If criticism of Levin from Slate, from Media Matters, from any number of places I've forgotten, is removed because the sources are deemed inadequate, why should Levin's vicious attacks on Frum, Brooks, and McWhoever be included with sources that are even more inadequate? I am interested in fairness and neutrality as well, and both concepts require that a consistent standard be applied to all individuals. Gamaliel (talk) 03:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)