User talk:QueenofBattle/Archive 5/24/09

My political compass

Another Wikipedian turned me onto this fun website. From The Political Compass, I am Economic Left/Right: 6.75 (much more economically right than Joe Biden, a bit more than Sarah Palin, but slightly less than Margaret Thatcher) and Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 2.41 (about the same as Stephen Harper and the Pope, but only a bit more than Barack Obama). Interesting ideological company I keep, I guess...

Election day 2008

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		This barnstar is for every editor who assisted in accuracy, form, vandalism and POV fighting for Barack Obama for Election Day 2008, and who did it with civility, and just a dash of frustration and coriander. Moni3 (talk) 13:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject College football December 2008 Newsletter

The December 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
Automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject College football January 2009 Newsletter

The January 2009 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject College football February 2009 Newsletter

The February 2009 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Civil Air Patrol edits

Hey Newguy, thanks for your help with several Civil Air Patrol articles. Fightin' Phillie (talk) 20:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure to try my hand at improving the Civil Air Patrol articles. Newguy34 (talk) 21:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Obama talk page

Thanks for coming in. I was just pulling out my hair with the "fringe theory" argument. I needed a break, so I am glad you came along. Bytebear (talk) 01:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

This tired old liberal, partisan attempt at painting anyone who doesn't agree with them as somehow "fringe" is getting very old. If it's so absurd, why have they spent so much time attempting to refute it? Newguy34 (talk) 02:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

ITN for Madoff Investment Scandal

On 12 March, 2009, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article Madoff Investment Scandal, which you created. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the In the news candidates page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 18:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me sir

Excuse me sir, but have I done something to offend you? You have been most unpleasant to me, and there is no reason that you should delete my articles. Furthermore, you have been unwilling to respond to my comments which I have courteously left here, what have I done that offended you so? John Norrison (talk) 20:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Newguy, please remember to assume good faith when it comes to other users. It would not have hurt you to simply add a brief reply to John's messages as opposed to quite rudely reverting them as vandalism--Jac16888^Talk 20:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I only assume good faith until proven otherwise. The new editor is quickly running into trouble with his WP:TE, WP:Spam, and Stalking. I have suggested that he read the guide at the top of his talk page. Newguy34 (talk) 20:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Hi. You should be aware that you are the subject of a discussion at WP:ANI#Mr._Newguy34. You may wish to contribute to the discussion there. Mimetic Polyalloy (talk) 21:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Please take a look at the recent edits at Weatherman (organization)

There is some POV edits involved on the Weatherman article. I thought you might be interested. Bytebear (talk) 01:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Your CSD on Criticism of George W. Bush

Hi, just a heads up that your Attack Speeedy Delete tag on Criticism of George W. Bush was removed. It definitely would not qualify under the rubric of WP:G10 and is too contestable for a prodding. You are welcome to try an AfD but I don't know how sucessful that would be. Valley2city^‽ 22:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep, saw that. The article most certainly violates Wiki rules on attacks, POV forks, etc. There is a move on the talk page to merge with Public perception of George W. Bush, which I support, so we'll see how that goes. Newguy34 (talk) 22:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Presidency of Barack Obama

I reversed you again as I just can't find it in the source unless you did the math by yourself which would be OR. If my eyes are really that bad and giving up on me I apologize if you point out the paragraph in the source that says as you said (since even ctrl-f didn't help me). Just in case I'm right you might want to search for a citation that would back-up this part I reversed. Thanks, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Good grief, blasted Yahoo must have changed the article text on me, so I re-cited it, and then added a second cite. Thanks for your patience. Newguy34 (talk) 03:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Such can happen. I'll take a look tomorrow since it's getting late here for me but good to know that I'm not as blind as I thought. Regards, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
• The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you are interested, or you can add it directly to your user page by copying the following: {{WPMILHIST Announcements}}.
• Important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
• The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, writing contests, and article logistics.
• We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
• We've developed a style guide that covers article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.
• If you're looking for something to work on, there are many articles that need attention, as well as a number of review alerts and copy-editing alerts.
• The project has a stress hotline available for your use.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around! Kirill ^[pf] 00:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Barack Obama

I've reverted you 2 recent edits at Barack Obama. The lede is a summary of the article, and the article is written in summary style. The lede is intentionally uncited, and the information can be find in the body of the article, and in the many sub-articles. Please seek consensus on the talk page before making any potentially contentious edit, due to the article probation. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

But, the problem being, of course, is that the information cited borders on POV and does not appear in the article's main body (at least not that I can find). Can you help point me to where a reliable source says that Obama was an underdog or that his primary victory "surprised campaign watchers"? QueenofBattle (talk) 20:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I have not personally been involved in the debate, but there has been a long discussion about this very section at Talk:Barack Obama#Unexpected. You should discuss any changes you wish to make in that thread and build a consensus for them before making any further changes. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

After reading that l-o-n-g discussion that appeared to be getting nowhere, and in the absense of reliable sources for the information I removed anywhere in the article (or subarticles) that I can find, I was bold and edited the sentence. You claimed that "the information can be find in the body of the article, and in the many sub-articles" and cited that as the justification for reverting my edits, but that doesn't appear to be the case. So, maybe a bit of purposeful reverting rather than knee-jerk reverting is in order here? QueenofBattle (talk) 21:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVII (March 2009)

The March 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Marinate

Someone needed to call out CoM for the large slice of bullshit pie he helped himself to. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you feel that it's your place to do so, or even that it actually needed to be done. But, everyone needs to simmer down. One man's POV is another's NPOV. QueenofBattle (talk) 02:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't feel the need to justify myself here. Even the most cursory glance at CoM's edit history will reveal the scope of the problem. It doesn't surprise me one little bit that you saw fit to single me out and not CoM, the person who deleted the comments and precipitated the argument in the first place. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry you feel that way. And, please don't compound the matter's complicated nature by also accusing me of, well, I'm not even sure what you are attempting to accuse me of doing. But, at any rate, there is no excuse for your actions given Wiki's core principle of civility. QueenofBattle (talk) 02:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

AN/I report

Courtesy notice: I have filed an AN/I report here in attempt to deal with a discussion at Talk:Barack Obama, in which you have been involved, that I believe needs some administrative intervention. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 06:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Please don't put words in my mouth.

Please do not misquote me, claiming I allowed my edit was POV. This misquote is not gentlemanly behaviour. The additions are factual or report correctly charges that were made in the source material. All are documented in the source material. You should desist from this improper behavior. --Zeamays (talk) 00:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Let me try to explain my point again. You claim that your proposed additions are needed to "make the point that Bush was unqualified..." Again, it is not our place to be "sensational" or to "make the point". Also, per BLP rules, material that is controversial requires more than a single source (i.e., one book is not enough). The additions represent a single author's POV when NPOV is what is called for in a BLP. Sourcing or not, the information is contentious, and you really need to discuss these types of edits on the talk page, and attempt to gain consensus, before re-inserting them. One other editor has already reverted your edits citing essentially the same basis as me, so please heed our warnings and seek discussion before insisting on these edits. Otherwise, I'm afraid, we have little option but to open an entry on the BLP noticeboard or AN/I. Let's decrease the rhetoric and work through this, shall we? QueenofBattle (talk) 01:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I would like to put my two cents in here. If I (w/o even checking the sources) am blinded by POV... I guess it was written in POV (language).--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I might suggest you also make this point at User talk:Zeamays, as we collectively try to work through this editing dispute, as I am not sure Zeamays will see your comment here. QueenofBattle (talk) 03:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I just did [1].--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 04:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• I moved this discussion to the George W. Bush talk page. --Zeamays (talk) 13:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Obama articles

As you may notice we are having a serious problem with some edit warring, accusations, incivilities, etc., on the Obama-related articles. Although I appreciate you are concerned about accuracy and your particular interpretation of the facts, those facts are inappropriate fringe theories in any event. Please do not interfere with or override attempts to keep the discussion orderly because that is likely to encourage trouble. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 23:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, you must have the wrong guy. My attempt vis-a-vis the latest discussions of the Obama talk page was to shut the thing down without prejudice. No parting shots. No, "I'm right, you're wrong" comments. Just deal with these issues as they come up, maintain civility, assume good faith (always) and then shut the damned things down. Bobblehead's parting shot was uncalled for, and frankly he is wrong. But, it's unimportant whether he was right or wrong. The environment around editing this article has become so hostile, there is no air left. With all respect, you have at times been part of the problem. But, I'll also note that you are making an attempt to "turn the page," so let's try to do just that, shall we? QueenofBattle (talk) 23:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I am a signifcant part of the solution, not the problem. For my efforts I get attacked and accused quite often, so I have to develop a thick skin and no nonsense approach. Assuming good faith does not imply tolerating bad faith. There are and always have been editors who do nothing but cause trouble, and humoring them only exacerbates it. I don't want to get involved with squabbles among well-meaning editors and I see you're trying to help, which is why I was requesting not complaining. My personal opinion is that correcting the assumptions of someone's BLP-violating fringe conspiracy theory is as I said going to do more harm than good by encouraging them. But I think that little thread is not going to be a real problem as some others have been. Wikidemon (talk) 00:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, I think there is some work here that you and I can do together. Thanks for your response. QueenofBattle (talk) 00:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Do NOT edit the talk page sections or titles of other users

Unless it is blatant, obvious vandalism or otherwise running afoul of Wikipedia rules and policies. And for the record, there was never a travel ban on Pakistan at the time of Obama's trip; we were allies at that period of time, as the Soviets had just invaded Afghanistan. It is another tired meme trumped up and passed around by anti-Obama conspirators. Tarc (talk) 00:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

You are wrong, I can assure you. But, that is unimportant. Just help us shut it down without all the parting shots. We are trying to decrease the hostility and rhetoric, not increase it. Please help in that. QueenofBattle (talk) 00:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Take your own advice and realize that it is HIGHLY disruptive to alter the talk page comments of others users. My edits were to revert your vandalism. Tarc (talk) 00:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Which were clearly not vandalism. If you think they were, take it somewhere and try to report it. Your e-bullying will not work with me. You can not, with a clear concious, try to reprimand me for doing something to try and keep civility. Seriously? QueenofBattle (talk) 00:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

(unindent and EC X 3 - I'm slow on the draw) Tarc, although I didn't agree with QOB's making the change in the first place, given that QOB made it twice in good faith I would make the exact same argument to you in reverse, that correcting or getting frustrated over such a thing causes more of a fuss than it is worth. Also, technically, things like closing summaries, section headings, and the like are not really considered a personal talk page contribution. Editing them is not a talk page violation - there is a guideline or essay page somehwere that says that, possibly WP:TALK. They are best kept as neutral, uncontroversial, and informational as possible so: (1) rewriting them in a good faith effort to achieve that goal should be okay, and (2) even if they're not perfect, they're not worth fighting over. QOB is obviously editing in good faith to help out here, so please don't call those edits vandalism. Wikidemon (talk) 00:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, both of you need to go to your opposite corners here. QueenofBattle, if you fundamentally alter a closing note, then you should, at a minimum, remove the previous author's signature, or, preferably, replace their signature with yours. Both of you should also stop edit warring. If QoB is going to get their knickers in a twist over the wording of the closure message, then there isn't any harm in leaving the altered version unless it displays incorrect information. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 00:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

It did display incorrect information, but that's not why I altered it. I altered it to achieve closure without prejudice. A simple "Discussion closed by consensus" will go much farther than a statement a kin to "We are closing this discussion, but I'm going to make my point one last time." There is so much hostility around the Obama articles, and so little air, so as to make collaborative editing nearly impossible. Oh, and I'm sorry I didn't remove your signature when I altered the closing note; no harm intended. QueenofBattle (talk) 00:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

No, it did not display incorrect information; it is an idiot right-wing talking point with no basis in reality. Your altering another users comment was a bad-faith edit. If I see such edits I revert them, and will not hesitate to do so if I see them again. Please do not clutter my talk page with "talk back" templates either. Thank you. Tarc (talk) 01:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Good grief. Sometimes in life people just find a way to expose themselves for what they really are, don't they? Fascinating [snicker]. Oh well, thanks for your willingness to help and for the collaborative nature you have exhibited. In the future, though, maybe you shouldn't edit while enjoying the, umm, fire-water if you are unable to hold your liquor and control your temper. QueenofBattle (talk) 02:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

There has never been a travel ban for US citizens in Pakistan. There was a travel warning at the time due to the Soviet's Afghan War and the imposition of Sharia law in Pakistan, but there has certainly never been an outright banning of US citizens entering Pakistan. An outright travel ban, like the ban on travel to Cuba, can only be enacted by Congress. Travel warnings are just that, warnings. Any US citizen can ignore them at will, just don't go crying to the state department when you leave the country a foot shorter than when you arrived. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 04:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Fine, fine. I am not going to argue the subtleties of travel restrictions on US citizens from some 27 years ago, primarily, because that is not the point. The point is that we have got to turn the rhetoric down, and I mean way down, including those who think they own the article and are protecting it from evil fringe theories hell bent on destroying the free world. Obama traveled to Pakistan on an Indonesian passport, which he admits in his book. So, what. The conversation quickly got off that track and on to another where Tarc and others proceeded to knock the shit out of some poor editor, and then stupidly try to pick a fight with me. It's like being the guy in the bar fight trying to break things up, and getting sucker punched instead. It does nothing to advance, well, anything. Best, QueenofBattle (talk) 13:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Rollback enabled

Hi QueenofBattle!
I've seen you removing plenty of vandalism using the undo feature, so I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback can only be used to revert obvious vandalism, not good faith edits.
• Rollback may be removed at any time.

If you no longer want rollback, then contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some information on how to use rollback, you can view this page. I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, just leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Cheers, and happy editing! J.delanoy^gabs_adds 04:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Obama Lede

I don't know if you had a chance to look at my suggestions or not and was hoping to get an opinion. Soxwon (talk) 14:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh good grief, I am sorry. I think your changes look good. If you make those edits, I don't think you'll get any pushback, but the editing environment on that page is especially nasty now, so no promises. But, I support them. I said this on the talk page: I think marriage, kids and state of origin are already in the infobox (unlike all the other chronology), but it can't hurt to add it to the lede. Best, QueenofBattle (talk) 14:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanx, I noticed a slew of edits after I finished so I figured 'probably got buried.' :). Soxwon (talk) 14:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

CAP Rangers and Army Rangers

Hey there New, er, Queen!

Have you heard of the Civil Air Patrol Ranger Program? Since you're an infantryman yourself, I thought you might wish to comment at Talk:Civil Air Patrol Ranger. I'm stepping out on the conversation, and would appreciate your input. Fightin' Phillie (talk) 18:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

COWG

I have no objections if you want to assist with this article. I may be slow to add material -- Moving, Graduating College, Commissioning, etc... Fightin' Phillie (talk) 01:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Fema camp removal

You recently deleted a contribution i made to the FEMA page regarding FEMA camp conspiracy theories. Your reasoning was that it was a fringe theory. My purpose was to create a resource for people who have heard of FEMA camps and are looking for a well rounded perspective on the subject. I dont believe it to be a fringe theory as it was addressed by main stream media. I'm new to editing on wikipedia. What would be the most appropriate way to include this information on wikipedia? Should it be its own page, much like "9/11 conspiracy theories"? --Keithicus (talk) 19:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. In short, the answer is "yes". While I appreciate what you were trying to accomplish, the way you went about it is not how it is done at Wikipedia. So, what can we do? First, familiarize yourself with what Wikipedia believes are finge theories, as the definition can be different than what we may normally associate with fringe theories. Also, material needs to be reliably sourced, which is a higher standard than being "addressed by mainstream media." Most often, information like this that is controversial, requires even better sourcing both in quality of sources (so, no blogs or forums) and quantity (e.g., has it been addressed by several mainstream media outlets, or merely by one or two releatively minor ones?). The next question is one of relevance to the FEMA article. I think if you want to include a mention of this conspiracy theory in another article about "conspiracy theories", that'd be OK. If you want to start a new article about "government conspiracy theories" or "conspiracy theories involving government agencies" or even "FEMA camps controversy" (assuming there isn't already one), and include actual material (rather than a redirect) there, that too would probably be OK. But, the sourcing for inclusion in here just doesn't measure up and isn't really relevant to this article. So, better said, if the focus of the FEMA article was about the evidence of conspiracy theories and the conspiracy theorists, then the text can delve into those subjects. But, this article is about FEMA, so the focus should stay on FEMA and not on theories about conspiracies involving FEMA. Also, discussing planned edits on the article's talk page first may help them be received by the Wikipedia community easier. Hope my thoughts help. Let me know if I can help further. QueenofBattle (talk) 20:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Obama edit war

Whether or not you agree with the changes, is it really a good idea to perpetuate the edit war? I suggest you self-revert and then discuss on the talk page. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I am without opinion with regard to either set of edits, and I wasn't aware there was an edit war being fought. I'll just leave it at that for others to sort out, as I see little need to self-revert. Thanks. QueenofBattle (talk) 23:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I only mention it because the previous edit was also a reversion, so it might have been wiser to check the edit history first. It shows a string of reversions. I recommended the self revert because you have added back the contentious material, which is contrary to the established convention of discussion before addition that has been adopted in the Obama-related articles. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll let those that find the material contentious work it out, as what my reversion had the effect of adding back seemed pretty benign. Plus, I reserve the right to follow the Wikipedia convention of being bold, rather than the convention of the Obama-related articles. QueenofBattle (talk) 00:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with being bold, unless you are "boldly reverting" or "boldly ignoring" the article probation that has made it necessary to build consensus before adding anything potentially contentious. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thinking about what I said, I just realized that would make an awesome mantra, wouldn't it? Consensus before contentious. I should trademark that phrase or something! -- Scjessey (talk) 01:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you should trademark it, so I can take the normal-and-customary 45% of the profits. I crack myself up. QueenofBattle (talk) 15:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVIII (April 2009)

The April 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit to Presidency of George W. Bush

No, it would seem the mistakes are yours. That word was the only thing affected by this edit of yours, an edit you made not two days ago. I was on the fence about posting here prior to receiving your post on my talk page, but now that you've flat-out denied something you did so recently, would you explain this? Abrazame (talk) 04:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure. The explanation is really quite simple. If you would go back a few edits before mine to see that the word "moderized" has been in the text for quite a while. Some ANON IP edited it to, well, "edited" with no explanation. I merely reverted that edit. There is no "clearly" anything about my reversion. But, I understand how you saw it the way you did; knees jerk quickly around Wikipedia sometimes. QueenofBattle (talk) 05:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Despite your position on editors' knees, you are evidently well enough versed with the English language and political rhetoric to identify the POV violation in the way the word "modernized" was being used there. I didn't claim that your clear violation was for something you made up out of thin air yourself (the word and its tone, unsupported as it is by the New York Times article referenced for that section). Your violation came when your response to a valid correction of this violation of Wikipedia policy was to revert back from the accurate reading to the NPOV violation. It's our responsibility to make an editorial judgement as to whether an edit is unsummarized because it's obvious what the point of the edit is, if it is unsummarized because someone is unfamiliar with editorial etiquette, or if it is unsummarized because the editor is trying to get away with something. Your own summary was equally barren of explanation. And you concede the thorough murkiness of your reversion. So your issue with my edit is what, then? Abrazame (talk) 05:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, good grief. I count the word "violation" four times here. I might suggest you simmer down a bit in the hunt for all things that may comprise an editing violation, lest you can produce your Wikipedia-arbiter-of-judgmentally-determined-violations badge and ID card. You said yourself, that is our responsibility to make a judgement as to the gist of an unsummarized edit. It did just that, and summarized it not by adding an edit summary, but by clicking the "minor edit" button (I mean, it's one word, after all). I exercised my judgement, with which you disagree. It is no more than that. Conversation over. The exit is to the left. QueenofBattle (talk) 05:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

You're the one who came into my talk page in the first place. Your suggestions that my knee was jerking and that I need to "simmer down" truly don't upset me but I do note them as a choice by you to personalize this. Perhaps the fact that I used the word "violation" four times was because you weren't addressing that aspect. You still aren't, so am I to interpret your knee as locked, and you as in support of such a POV term? Declaring that you're done with a conversation you began and yet have contributed nothing substantive to is hardly the exchange of ideas and opinions that defines a conversation. An editorial discussion is only productive if both parties not only make points (unclear though you establish yours as being) but are receptive and responsive to points. Your responses have been to establish a timeline, obvious and unnecessary given the edit history. The emptiness of your summary means that I must inquire why you restored such a term, as it's both obviously POV and should be most mature people's guess would not be in the NYT ref, even if they didn't read it to determine that. In other words, what if not a knee-jerk of your own caused you to restore that word which was unsupported by the ref? Abrazame (talk) 06:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)