Mantion

Please note that removing comments from your talk page is considered vandalism. I tried to warn you politely about WP:3RR which you seem to have ignored. Nloth 04:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hmmm interesting I am new to this so I will try to read your mind in the future. I was responding to Karlbunker attempt to insult me. He had removed sections from his talk so I assumed it was the norm. Please warn Karlbunker not to remove comments from his talk and remind him to not write critizisms of me with out explain it.. Thanks

Please stop throwing around the term "vandalism". You are currently involved in a content dispute with other editors on Joseph McCarthy. Nobody is committing vandalism -- not the editors who do not want your language included, and not you who keep putting it in. What you need to do, however, is gain consensus to keep your language in. Repeatedly inserting it won't work unless you can gain such consensus. The talk page is the place to do that -- not edit comments. Calling someone a vandal on Wikipedia is about the worst insult you can apply, and is considered a personal attack if the accusation is unjustified, which I assure you it is in this case. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I am inviting all recent editors of Joseph McCarthy to comment on a current dispute. User:KarlBunker, in his stated view out of concern for WP:NPOV#Undue weight, has reverted, deleted, and selectively reinstated factually accurate sourced information that I have added. I contend he is in error. Please see the discussion at Talk:Joseph McCarthy. Thank you. Kaisershatner 17:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have given up for now on the McCarthy page. It seems that article must only represent the view that McCarthy is the devil and the reality of the issue is irrelevant. I have spent hundreds of hours contributing to that page with relevant, accurate and cited information only to have it destroyed with no reason what so ever. Unfortunately nothing will change, it is sad and disgusting.Mantion 14:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

What's sad is your inability to understand one simple fact: That Wikipedia is required to reflect the majority opinion of leading scholars. sometimes a person has an opinion of what's "true" that differs from the majority opinion of scholars. On this topic, you happen to be one of those people, and your opinion is 180 degrees opposed to what the vast majority of scholars have written on the topic. Whether or not "nothing will change" on this issue depends on whether you ever manage to squeeze that small fact into your brain. Personally, I'm not optimistic. RedSpruce 01:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Was that an attempt to call me stupid? What makes up a "leading scholar". Considering modern authors have a great deal more information then previous authors. The fact that you will only consider the views of liberal authors as valid is the problem. I am sorry but Primary source material doesn't lie. Considering that most of that primary source material were not available till recently is a reason why modern authors are far more reputable then older authors. So what are "Leading scholars"??? those with a ultra left wing view of the world and who write novels with made up information and quote other left wing authors, then pass it off as a biography?Mantion 17:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

This is a matter of Wikipedia rules. Primary sources (which most certainly do lie, if they're written by liars) are discouraged in favor of secondary sources. If you consider most leading scholars to be "ultra left wing", that's your privilege, but it doesn't alter the fact that Wikipedia rules say it is they who must determine what is presented in Wikipedia articles. On the day when arch-conservative scholars (or Communist scholars or Rosicrucian scholars) become the majority voice, then it will be their work that is reflected in scholarly WP articles. I'm not saying this is right, I'm just telling you that those are the rules. There are lots of WP policy pages for you to read to confirm this. RedSpruce 18:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Maybe you and wikipedia have a different definition of Primary Source. In terms of this article, primary source material pertains to actual transcripts and or recordings of hearings and speeches. In no way is a transcript of a hearing less accurate then a reporters or authors opinion of that hearing. So please show me the page in Wikipedia where they put more weight on an secondary source then on a primary source? Thank you for not attacking me this time.. You see how this is more constructive?Mantion 18:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia:Attribution#Primary and secondary sources and Wikipedia:No original research#Reliable sources. A primary source like the transcript of a hearing may be reliable (compared to other kinds of primary source, such as a book written by McCarthy), but it wouldn't give an article reader much usable information. Article readers want to know things like why McCarthy is famous, and what he's famous for. Analysis like that can only come from a secondary source, like a biographer. And in this case, that means that people you consider to be "ultra left wing" (and whom I consider to be merely sane) are "in charge." RedSpruce 18:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Readers want to know about McCarthy not why he is famous. You say he is famous for being an evil hate filled man who was made false and baseless accusations. Many modern and reliable authors with the advantage of previously censored Primary source material have taken a more impartial and accurate view of the man. They largely agree that he is famous because he was judged so unfairly, and inaccurately for so long. Clearly the primary source material such as transcripts are important in determining which view is correct. If his claims were so baseless it should show up in the transcripts. If how ever he was not the man previously described it too will show up in transcripts of speeches and hearings. How can you dispute this? Secondary source who analyze actual court transcripts are far more reliable then those who analyze select newspaper and tv sources for their information. It is rare to have this special case. Where the previous "majority view of leading scholars have been so conclusively dis proven by hereto inaccessible primary source material. No one is creating history here, no one is expressing their own views. In all my contributions I have found reliable sources for the information. When looking at conflicting views of "leading scholars" we need to consider bias, and personal knowledge of the subject matter. Largely it is the senate career of McCarthy in dispute and solely around his investigations. Until recently his investigation and related investigations were not available, now they are, and leading scholars that studied this undisputed and reliable sources should get more weight then other scholars that did not have this information. In this case the "Majority view of leading scholars" has been shown largely inaccurate and not reliable. I myself have read hundreds of pages of testimony and not found one instance of improper investigation techniques. Reliable schoolers have poured over the information, if evidence of McCarthy's inappropriate behavior was in it, it would surely have surfaced by now. Secondary sources who did not have access to critical information should not get more weight then reliable secondary sources with access to critical information. That is all I am saying. The article should reflect the opinion of leading scholars with access to critical informationMantion 19:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, but the rules of Wikipedia are what they are and the consensus opinion of current scholars is what it is. Your fantasies about what is "true" and what has or hasn't been revealed by recently-revealed source material don't change either of those. Wikipedia rules do not allow for an editor to decide which scholar is "biased" or which ones did their job well or which ones were "right". The only thing editors can argue is which scholars are considered reputable and credible by other scholars, and where the current consensus opinion lies. The answer to the second question can be answered with a 5-second search for books with "McCarthy" in the title. I don't make the Wikipedia rules, nor do I have control over current scholarly opinion, so there's no point in us continuing this discussion. RedSpruce 20:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

BTW, another Wikipedia policy of interest is WP:NPOV#Undue weightRedSpruce 20:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Exactly you said "current scholars". The work of most current scholars portray McCarthy far differently then the article on Wikipedia. So I guess we should change the article to follow Wikipedia's rules. I am glad we reached the same conclusion finally. See how much more constructive it is to have a civil discussion.Mantion 21:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ha, ha. very funny. Enjoy your little fantasy world. Your talk page is off my watch list. RedSpruce 01:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please use the Talk:Joseph McCarthy page to address new issues on Joseph McCarthy. Edits of ledes should be based on agreed-upon changes in the other sections of the article that the lede summarizes. There's a suggestion from User:SJMNY waiting for you at Talk:Joseph McCarthy#McCarthyism. Sincerely,--User:HopsonRoad 04:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Since you have a big interest in Ho Chi Minh, I was wondering if you could help out in checking it for vandalism, now and maybe later? The article is being edited alot and often I have my suspicions that the edits aren't all factually correct. here is the diff between the article as it is as I write this, compared to when I last reverted vandalism in it. As you see there have been some changes made. Are they factually correct? And if not, could you help fixing them? Shanes 01:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yah I would be happy to do what I can.Mantion 14:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Regarding your recent edit on Belinda Stronach: calling her a social democrat is kind of an outrageous statement given her history as a Conservative and a Liberal. If you have a reliable source that says "Belinda Stronach is a social democrat", then please provide it. If you do not, then you may not make this edit. Please review WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Thank you. Ground Zero | t 04:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

So you are saying here that you are reverting just for the hell of it? I guess you are asking to be blocked for vandalism. Ground Zero | t 04:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I accused you of vandalism because you reverted an edit on this article while claiming never to have heard of Ms. Stronach. I think I was justified in questioning you. The arguments presented on the talk page of an article are not a substitute for presenting a reliable source. This issue has been discussed at length on the article talk page, and no editor has ever provided anything but conjecture and personal opinion to support the claim that she is a social democrat. You (and other editors) are entitled to your opinion about Ms. Stronach, but you are not entitled to post it in a Wikipedia article. WP:NOR and WP:NPOV are useful resources on this issue. Ground Zero | t 05:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

There has been lots of discussion about this issue. See Talk:Belinda_Stronach/Archive_A and Talk:Belinda_Stronach/Archive_B. For the sake of full disclosure, I participated in those discussions under my old user name, User:Kevintoronto. Ground Zero | t 05:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

• I note also that I asked User:Frelancedave on his talk page to support his claim, but he continued only reverting. He provided no evidence. See User talk:Frelancedave. Ground Zero | t 05:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

This is separate from our discussion around the NPOV balance of the article. You have been replacing the "list of persons..." section to the article without entering any comments about this edit, and indeed without understanding what it is you're replacing. I explained here how the version of this list (that you've been replacing) includes statements that make no sense and are based on a misunderstanding by the original editor. This version that you've been replacing also includes an outright misstatement of fact: William Remington was never named in any Venona document. RedSpruce (talk) 02:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

It is time to request one about the Joseph McCarthy article, bring up their assertion that a whole decade can be labeled "extreme" without multiple citations, and the various issues you have brought up. We should also post on the talk page our intentions. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have opened an ANI thread about your post to the above talkpage, as well as my removal of the post, and your restoral of it. Unitanode 22:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

  Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Euthanasia are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. ► RATEL ◄ 01:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

 

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistent disruptive editing. I would probably have stuck with a warning for the edit-war at Chick-fil-A, but this is absolutely unacceptable. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Black Kite (talk) 21:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

SUCK IT WIKIPEDIA :D This is why I don't donate and rarely contribute anymore.. Your bias is sickening and a waste of bandwidth..

• "Bias" is unacceptable, but libelling people you disagree with is acceptable? JamesBWatson (talk) 19:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

) wiki will be bankrupt someday Mantion (talk) 02:08, 27 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

	A chicken sammie for you
	By the looks of things, you could really use this. Enjoy! – Lionel (talk) 06:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Looks goodMantion (talk) 12:20, 29 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Mantion. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Dog breed identification.The discussion is about the topic List of fatal dog attacks in the United States. Thank you. -- Astro$01 (talk) 05:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Get a clue, All the most recent articles state a "retriever mix". I Sited a blog, from an expert in the field, that pointed out and obvious flaw. Its people like you that keep Wikipedia from being accurate. Sorry the established media is not reliable and its perfectly reasonable to cite a blog and other more modern and accurate media. You clearly are obtuse if you insist that a dog that weighs 35lbs is a golden retriever. My original change was to retriever mix which matched the majority of news reports. I think you need to step away from the article completely.

For personal or group blogs that are not reliable sources, see Self-published sources below.

Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.[6]

Mantion (talk) 08:21, 6 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

  Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to 2014 Ferguson unrest, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

I fixed it.Mantion (talk) 06:29, 30 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

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) 16:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

I have blocked your account indefinitely for disruption and per WP:NOTHERE, including POV-pushing, inappropriate talk page comments (which include WP:BLP violations), and egregious personal attacks. I regret having to block an editor who once made this comment and once showed potential to be an asset to the project, but your recent edits make it clear that you do not want to be and you are not trying to be. Swarm ♠ 23:52, 11 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia contributors were controlling the Talk page, deleting peoples discussions and controlling a page. Multiple contributors took excessive steps to promote a vary biased view. After seeing this abusive behavior I pointed it out in talk. As such I was punished for disguising the bias of the contributors that were controlling and abusing the system. Administrators should have stepped in and stopped the bias destruction of contributions to the TALK page and the control of the article. Its sad the admins are bias and trying to abuse contributors who pointed out the sever bias in an article.Mantion (talk) 00:26, 22 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jennie Eisenhower is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennie Eisenhower until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Kleuske (talk) 12:39, 20 December 2021 (UTC)Reply