User talk:LedRush/Archive005

Talk from Kiefer's page.

I didn't want to continue this on his page, but I did want to say that I agree things are calm when Miremare isn't there, and I always felt both you and Kiefer present a generally more elevated, logical approach to everything. I never felt that his presence disrupted much of anything. I admit his one comment of "stop arguing over semantics" felt out of place, but at the same time, it was still completely ignorable. I think you may have gotten the wrong impression when he tried to get between yourself and Miremare a couple months ago, and that can often happen when someone tries to be a moderator between two parties. At least Kiefer is on cool down and will get over things. I have a lot of respect for both of you, and I hope this situation just doesn't escalate further. : (

He at least called Miremare out on not getting his way, I was impressed with that.--SexyKick 16:45, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I have no doubt that Kiefer means well and is an excellent editor. I also have no doubt, as I have admitted in the past, I can be sharper than people want me to be. There is no need for me to rehash my opinions on why I'm annoyed at Kiefer and his posts, but I very much appreciate your comments here and on the discussion page.LedRush (talk) 16:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

An explanation, now that I've cooled off a bit

Hi LedRush. First off, I do owe you an apology for losing my cool. I generally pride myself on staying level-headed in adverse conditions, so when I fail to do that, it is truly a failing on my part, regardless of the circumstances. I'm sorry.

That said, I just wanted to give a quick explanation as to the nature of my comments, hopefully from a more level-headed viewpoint. In the talk-page discussion, I felt that the ongoing verbal battle between you and Chaos was starting to get out of hand, and both you and he had resorted to trading insults and making comments about each other that did little to further the discussion of the original topic. The comments had much more to do with attacking each other's character, mostly in at least one form of "You refuse to budge because you're X". In my experience, that sort of discussion is both counterproductive and highly disruptive, and I was trying, unsuccessfully, to nudge you both back on topic. In hindsight, I should have employed a different method to do that - all I ended up doing was making your tempers flare even more.

I want you to realize that I was not singling you out in that initial attempt to steer things back on topic - I was trying to be as clear as I could that my admonishment applied to Chaos as well, and more generally to everyone in the discussion. My attention turned more specifically to you when you got upset at me, and as I said earlier, I was getting personally angry and realized I needed to back off and cool down. But my intent throughout was not to make you out to be a bad guy, or to assume bad faith on your part. It was to try to minimize undue bickering.

The only thing I ask of you is to realize that criticism of your behavior isn't always a personal attack, nor is it meant to be. Tempted as I might have been at times, I've resisted the urge to call you names, directly accuse you of acting in bad faith, or do anything as an admin that would have been highly inappropriate. I lost my temper, I was impolite, and I said that you didn't deserve politeness. That was wrong. But just the same, I do not believe you are acting in bad faith, and I have no intention of attacking you personally. I simply want to help you by pointing out when your tactics are doing more harm than good - as someone who's worked in Wikiquette Alerts in the past, I've tried to do that with many people, in the interest of helping the community at large.

I'm going to stay away from the Mega Drive/Genesis naming debate for a while longer - it was a mistake for me to try contributing to that discussion again so soon. I wish you luck, and I hope that a decision is achieved soon that everyone can agree to live with. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your post and clarification. What I intended to do initially with Chaos was merely to state that despite tons and tons of comments on the subject, the sides hadn't changed their views. Rather than continue to make declaratory statements that you know the other side disagrees with, simple agree to disagree. When he came back with the attack on me for my commonname discussions, I felt it was both hypocritical and wrong. I could have been less pointy with my comments, but at the point I'm not sure that mattered. Your criticism of me, even though I entered that disagreement trying to cool things down, seemed misplaced and also hypocritical, as you were engaging in the very conduct for which you were criticizing me. That doesn't mean that your criticism had no merit or that I can't deal with the situation better, merely that I was annoyed by the manner and method you inserted yourself into the situation.LedRush (talk) 17:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Is it a bad thing?

Is it a bad thing that when I saw a discussion on ANI about a user named MrRhythm that my first thought was "Oh. A Rush / Neil Peart fan"? Ravensfire (talk) 18:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

It's mystical. ;)
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 21:38, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed response, but it is never a bad thing to think about Peart. The sad thing is, I just spent a few seconds on deciding whether or not I should carve out "being in bed" from that statement, and decided against it. Berean, good catches on the Rush article...thanks for keeping it clean!LedRush (talk) 15:08, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. I try to keep things clean but the mongol horde of schoolchildren are a relentless force.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 15:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

RM discussion you might be interested in.

[1] Multi-RM really I guess.--SexyKick 21:04, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

3 Lies by Black Kite (t)

Some of us are capable of having a disagreement without throwing insults around. I'm trying my best to ignore you, but the next time you poke your nose into a conversation you weren't involved in to call me a liar I will just pass it to WP:ANI. I couldn't care less about being called most things (as an admin you get used to it, especially when you administrate the MoMK page) but I am not a liar. Clear? Black Kite (t) 08:24, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

You have indeed lied. On top of that, you have made ad hominem attacks (unprovoked), you have disrupted conversations, and you have made threats (much like this one). Your most recent lie was in this uncivil attack on B2C where you stated "Since you clearly can't read, I'll say it again. Do not do that again. If you can't cope with a civil agrument, don't get into one to begin with, and then try to hide it when you don't like the outcome." You know for a fact this is not what happened, as has been pointed out to you the last time this came up. He hatted the comments because they were off topic sniping that distract from the core discussion. There was no outcome of which to speak, and there was certainly nothing in it that would indicate that he had some vested interest in hiding the conversation as you claim. Your statements are clearly untrue (on top of personal attacks and disruptive) and, as such, are correctly classified as lies.LedRush (talk) 13:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and another recent lie was when you called me an SPA (and further insulted me by talking about my bad faith motivations for being a part of the project)[2], despite the fact that that is demonstrably untrue.LedRush (talk) 13:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but there is a big difference between "a difference of opinion" and a lie. If I do something you disagree with, and then comment on it, you can't call it a lie because it differs from your opinion. Also, when the vast majority of your edits are to a single article or talk page, then that makes you a SPA. You may have expanded your range since then, but that's irrelevant. You are allowed to disagree with me, but you are not allowed to call me a liar by saying "Black Kite said X, and I disagree with it, therefore he's wrong, therefore he's a liar". And since you've repeated it above, this is a final warning. Black Kite (t) 18:19, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Here are the facts. I became a user about 3.5 years ago. I've started several articles, watch about 300, and focus my editing on subjects which interest me, often putting focus on one at a time. I made my first edit on MoMK less than 11 months ago. Since the article has stabilized and is no longer the POV mess it was when I got there, the last month or so have seen me make a majority of my edits on other articles. These are not opinions, they are facts. You know this, because of the SPA conversations which happened on MoMK talk page showed that I wasn't an SPA and that I had a rather active account for years. When you call me an SPA (in the middle of otherwise insulting me), you are making an untrue statement, and one that is demonstrably false (not an opinion). Therefore, you have lied. Does one lie make you a liar? Everyone lies from time to time, myself included. Perhaps you are not a habitual liar, perhaps you are. I really don't know and I don't care. You, however, have been caught in a lie here and rather than just say "Sorry, I thought you were an SPA based on a concentration of edits from several months ago and I forgot the details", you've decided the best course of action is to further insult and attempt to humiliate me, while threatening administrative action against me.

Your second falsehood, the one about B2C, also seems to fall into the definition of "lie" ("something intended or serving to convey a false impression"). You made a statement that he kept hatting your comments because he didn't like the outcome of the conversation. Firstly, he only hatted them once. Secondly, he did it because it was an off topic personal attack made by you, and he wanted to focus the conversation on the reading of the policy, not about whether your attack was ad hominem and what his editing history was. It is true that in order to conclude that someone lied, you need to make a decision about the person's motivation for making falsehoods. This case is less clear than the one above, but is proven sufficiently for me to call it a lie.LedRush (talk) 19:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

In short, in my opinion, I believe that you lied because I believe that you (1) know that I'm not an SPA but still hurl the term at me as a personal attack; and (2) know that B2C hatted the comments because they were off topic yet you accuse him of doing it because he didn't like the outcome of the discussion, and that such action should be reported as vandalism. I don't know if your comment below is a lie yet because I haven't heard your explanation for it.LedRush (talk) 19:32, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The following is a summary of BlackKite's recent actions on the Yoghurt talk page, which led to the discussion above: "B2C tried to hat the [off topic] conversation so we could get back on topic [3], but Blackkite reverted and took the opportunity to threaten B2C [4] with admin action[5], and invent obviously untrue motivations for B2C's actions (while sprinkling in more personal attacks)[6]. Hopefully we can just get back to the policy discussions."LedRush (talk) 15:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• Ironic that you say I threatened him with admin action when I didn't, isn't it? Usually we call that a "lie". See my point now? Black Kite (t) 18:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Is this a third lie? Diff of threat: [7]. It seems odd that you would forget that you threatened to make a report against him at the administrator intervention against vandalism (despite the fact that hatting an off topic conversation which contains personal attacks is not even remotely vandalism) right after you made the threat.LedRush (talk) 19:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion closed

An arbitration case regarding all articles related to the subject of Abortion has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

• All articles related to the subject of Abortion:

1. shall be semi-protected until November 28, 2014;
2. shall not be moved absent a demonstrable community consensus;
3. are authorized to be placed on Standard discretionary sanctions;

In addition:

1. Editors are reminded to remain neutral while editing;
2. Structured discussion is to take place on names of articles currently located at Opposition to the legalization of abortion and Support for the legalization of abortion, with a binding vote taken one month after the opening of the discussion;
3. User:Orangemarlin is instructed to contact the Arbitration Committee before returning to edit affected articles;
4. User:Michael C Price, User:Anythingyouwant, User:Haymaker, User:Geremia, User:DMSBel are all indefinitely topic-banned; User:Michael C Price and User:Haymaker may appeal their topic bans in one year;
5. User:Gandydancer and User:NYyankees51 are reminded to maintain tones appropriate for collaboration in a sensitive topic area.

For the Arbitration Committee,
- Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 04:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification that: The Abortion case is supplemented as follows:

Remedy 1 of Abortion is amended to the following:

• Any uninvolved administrator may semi-protect articles relating to Abortion and their corresponding talk pages, at his or her discretion, for a period of up to three years from 7 December 2011. Pages semi-protected under this provision are to be logged.

For the Arbitration Committee, Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

Warning users on Beer pong

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Beer pong: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. --AW (talk) 18:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

		Happy 2012 !!!
		Dear LedRush, May the Year to Come Bring You Great Happiness. Very Best Wishes, SuperMarioMan 02:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Abortion amendment request

Hello. I have made a request to the Arbitration Committee to amend the Abortion case, in relation to the structured discussion that was to take place. The request can be found here. Regards, Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 04:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Union Busting

I'd love to work on this with you. I have read back in the talk page and I see you have been very active and i appreciate that you responded to my interest. But I've also noted that Goldzjatn and Richard Meyers seem to own the page. I imagine they will jump in as well. The more the merrier. But I hope everyone agrees that sometimes editors need to step back and let new blood into the mix for objectivity. I believe that Wikipedia is great source for students and lay persons to research material and I would very much like to bring some objective scholarship to the page. As it is currently written it is just awful. Their are about 4-5 sections that use Confessions of a Union Buster as the ONLY source citation! Yikes. There is a site called Confessions of a Union Organizer too. But I don't believe it is truthful to paint entire organizations based on one person's activities. I would like to bring levity, honesty, and objectivity not to mention FACTS into the article as well as modernism. Most of the article is a reiteration of the Levitt book which was published in 1994 and described his activities in the 1970's before computers existed! Example:

In 1980, most union busters acquired clients through a network of labor lawyers.[22][23] Some companies keep labor relations consultants and attorneys on retainer. Others may monitor government NLRB offices where NLRB petitions for recognition or elections are filed by unions which reveal organizing drives before management knows about them.[24] Advertising through websites and direct mail are additional means of contact.[citation needed] Historically, some agencies sent secret operatives into a prospective client's factory without permission. A report was prepared and submitted to the manager, revealing conspiracies of sabotage and union activities.[25] Such aggressive and disreputable tactics no longer seem common, nor necessary, in order for labor relations specialists to find clients.::cn}}

Really? NLRB petitions are public record. No surprise that labor consultants would watch them. And don't most unions also keep labor counsel on retainer? This paragraph describes items then at the end says essentially "but it doesn't happen anymore". So let's describe what DOES happen?

Here's another that is so 1970's: A labor consultant may advise the company to provide nothing more than the very minimum necessary legal address requirements, which do not include zip codes, apartment numbers, or street designations such as Street, Avenue, Drive, or Place. The union is forced to spend significant resources to translate the minimal required legal addresses into usable addresses, and may therefore fail to contact many potential members.[30]

Computers exist now. All employee names are readily available. Facebook, twitter etc. This reveals how so much of that article was merely copy/pasted from the book and no one disputed that it was entirely outdated. OK, don't get me started. Let's try to improve the article.EcFitzsimmons (talk) 02:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

When I originally got to the article is was one huge mess. I tried to tone down the POV, but you correctly state that Gld and Rich have exerted ownership of the article. Other than POV, you are correct that much of the article comes from a book. I've noticed that several parts in the past were taken verbatim from a book, which is a copyright violation. While I've removed some pieces for this reason, I suspect that much more of the article (and the related ones) is in violation of WP:Copyvio. I don't have too much time to devote to the project now, and I am not an expert in this field, but I will try and collaborate with you as much as I can to make this article less of a mess.LedRush (talk) 14:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Well done

		The Resilient Barnstar
		For professionalism and adherence to consensus even when you don't agree with it. ElKevbo (talk) 22:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Please

...follow BRD and cease. I'm hoping that we strive for stability first and foremost which requires letting things rest during discussion even if it means keeping the wrong version. Changing things prematurely before editors reach collective consensus encourages the wrong thing. I'm hoping that we all find a way to work together.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 21:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Um...I am boldly making changes. If you revert, I will discuss. However, you and TMCk are not 100% right here and I am trying to find a middle ground. Seeing as this is really a case-by-case example, it seems the best way is to change the article and see what you guys think.

I hope that you will look to the actual arguments and contents of my changes, though, before reverting en masse.LedRush (talk) 21:07, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Nobody is usually 100% right, and that counts especially for a certain editor with ownership issues that makes it hard to work on the article. Not just for me but for everybody.TMCk (talk) 01:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
BTW, I don't have any problem with your changes you've made today, I only prefer rewrites and restructure of sentences that avoid words like "alleged" entirely w/o loosing any meaning or introduce some POV (which would be counter productive considering the intent.)TMCk (talk) 01:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I would rather not revert you. :) My tone was more one of haste to get you to stop momentarily to discuss. I'm actually looking forward to your help and glad you arrived at the article. I was trying to neutralize that article to avert an edit war which was going on...it is important to me to try to get the editors on board about behavior and how we might work together to find an agreement or at least consensus. Suppose the next editor comes along and reverts you rather than participating in the discussion...you would rather they conversed with you (us) first, right? That is what I hope to accomplish. My edits in this matter were in an effort to reach a tenable compromise with neutral language while discussion was ongoing. With an active thread going on, being bold isn't usually a good thing.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 21:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

With the nature of the edits, it is cumbersome and inefficient to discuss them individually on the talk page. I didn't revert anyone, and I was already discussing on the talk page, so your implication that I wasn't following BRD was simply incorrect. If I wanted to get technical, it would seem that any changes that you and TMCk made after Overagainst's reversion would not be following BRD. But it seems unfruitful to go down that path. I laid out my philosophy on the talk page and then enacted a compromise (with some grammatical and factual fixes that were not being discussed) in the article. In this way it should be quite easy to narrow down the scope of the disagreement. Assuming TMCk and Overagainst can control themselves and try and engage the discussion with just a little bit of good faith.LedRush (talk) 21:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you seriously saying I didn't control myself? Did you check my edit history for the last few month at this article? Better address that to single purpose Overagainst who reverts pretty much everyone making changes to his edits. Please check and think about it.TMCk (talk) 01:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

You are reading too much into what amounts to my plea above. I'm not leveling any accusations against you. I was trying to get you to discuss more but not change anything quite yet. I'm measuring this BRD cycle from reversions that happened yesterday...we were hopefully past the B and the R and into the D. 8^D As for my part, I'm the one that started the discussion...so I could revert beforehand right? In my mind, I have one actual measured revert against Overagainst who was reverting me before I had enough time to finish what I was doing this morning. To put your mind at ease, I have no intention of reverting you...nor do I necessarily disagree with your edits.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 21:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Abortion article titles notification

Hey LedRush. This is just a notification that a binding, structured community discussion has been opened by myself and Steven Zhang on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. As you were named as a involved party in the Abortion case, you may already know that remedy 5.1 called for a "systematic discussion and voting on article names". This remedy is now being fulfilled with this discussion. If you would like to participate, the discussion is taking place at WP:RFC/AAT. All the best, Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 22:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Led_Zeppelin#Led_Zeppelin_is_NOT_HEAVY_METAL

need your contribution in the discussion please.HasperHunter (talk) 19:14, 11 March 2012 (UTC)`

April 2012

You have been blocked from editing for a period of about 24 hours for persistent neglect of harassment of an editor. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 01:10, 01 April 2012 (UTC)
Got you last year, got you this year, see you next year :) TMCk (talk) 13:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Fae's repeated incivility and unfounded accusations

The following is a conversation on Fae's talk page which is had decided to edit. To preserve an unedited version, I have copied it here.LedRush (talk) 14:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Regarding your question...

...Here. Do you realise how offensive and paranoid this question is? I'm employing a commonly used colloquial expression to tell Youreallycan that I hope my actions will not boomerang on me and that I hope he'll not let me down. Have I become an homophobe too, now? Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 23:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I have already raised the point on ANI as Youreallycan promptly deleted my comment. I suggest you call me paranoid and offensive there, if you are happy that putting the blame on me for asking the obvious question is the direction you want to take on this one. I'll read your reply tomorrow, past my bedtime here. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 23:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

You have disgustingly assumed bad faith of me. Did you really expect a different reply? Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 23:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. I'm still off to bed. --Fæ (talk) 23:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

It is interesting that Fae so casually throws around these types of hurtful accusations "homophobic". It is ironic that he at once will accuse people of saying that accusations of homophobia have no place in civil discourse, yet make the same accusations about an admin that has obviously done nothing of the kind. Unfortunately, Fae has demonstrated that he does not care whether or not his incivil and disruptive actions hurt others or the project. However, Salvio, you should know that Fae may be more sensitive to these issues as he has been on the receiving end of some odious behavior.LedRush (talk) 00:46, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

LedRush, not only have you been flogging a dead horse, it is long buried and you are still thumping the dry ground; you had advice at WQA and you made a voluntary commitment to leave me alone, please follow it or others will begin to think you are obsessed. Your vague speculations that you find it "interesting" that I might be a bad person are not welcome on my talk page. If you have a specific issue about a demonstrable long term pattern of behaviour, with a proposal for improvement I will consider it, however this looks like fishing and incitement along the lines of a witch-finder. --Fæ (talk) 10:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps your repeated incivility and employment of aggressive and unfounded accusations over the last couple of weeks is not "long term", but it is quite obviously my proposal that you cease this behavior. I had hoped that after your actions were criticized at the last WQA that you would conduct yourself more appropriately. Good-bye, until the next time your incivility is directed at editors on pages which I watch.LedRush (talk) 14:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be having a problem with sticking to your commitment to leave me alone, in fact your statement looks like you are planning to obsessively hound me. To help you out, I will remove any further comments you make on my talk page without any reply. If you wish to contact me about matters that are not you making more threats or stalking me, then feel free to email me instead. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 22:52, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure you'll follow up on your promise to delete this message, but I think it is important to let you know that my statements do not indicate a plan to hound you. In fact, I explicitly contradict such a statement by telling you that I am not responding to you except when you make incivil comments and unfounded accusations about people on pages I watch. However, if you attack me on your talk page, I will also respond here, as I am this time. I sincerely hope that this is the last time I have this type of interaction with you, but that is entirely up to you.LedRush (talk) 14:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello LedRush. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 00:46, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Updates for articles about Italy

Hi, Wikid77 here. Thanks for periodic updates about the family trials in Italy. I wish another person could help you edit the text, but they have chased most of us off the article(s). Several people have been edit-blocked, and the hostility against me still remains (one year later), now with the fear that I might comment about the acquittals as, "I told you so". Other articles about Italy seem to be expanding well. In particular, the writing about the "Costa Concordia" has been very thorough, except that I wanted to clarify how the ship slowly tilted, and then at a critical moment, perhaps suddenly capsized 90 degrees into the sea (with 300 still aboard?), but then the ship slowly rose back somewhat from the water, before sunrise. I am not sure if that is how the ship sank that night. Anyway, with the new books being written by the former suspects, I wish they would hire you as a book editor! You deserve some extra rewards for your dedication to the topics. Thanks again. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:23, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Led Zeppelin & Rush

They are EPIC! 24.89.195.33 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 23:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC). 

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ

I mentioned you in my evidence submission. That section was subsequently deleted so that my evidence was within the limits, but I thought I would let you know, since I believe another user refers to you in their evidence. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

edit conflict on Union Busting

I'm working on the article, are you planning to edit as well? Richard Myers (talk) 16:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

No, I just wanted to undo your mass changes as they brought the article into a place it hasn't been in in months. It reintroduced many POV points, potential plagiarism issues, and deleted carefully crafted additions. If you want to edit, I suggest doing so in smaller bites which are discussed on the talk page first. Of course, you can edit however you want, and this is just a request.LedRush (talk) 16:22, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

One of the issues discussed here [8] is edits that falsely misrepresent source information. Both Cbislingtion and EcFitzsimmons have extensively edited the Union Busting article, and both are sock puppets of Oppo212, who has a long history of deceit, sock puppet voting on articles for deletion, and ideological bias.

Oppo212 has operated about a dozen confirmed sock puppets since 2008, most of which are now blocked. There are an additional half dozen or so suspected sock puppets that have edited other articles.

The sock puppet situation is awaiting checkuser, which i expect to confirm my research, and the conclusions of the Sock Puppet Investigation Clerk, that this is the case.

I am planning to bring the article back current, but i have to check each reference before i put it back into the article. Small edits are greatly preferred (i don't like that this task is necessary), but otherwise, the article may be forever compromised with false information. Richard Myers (talk) 16:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

As I mentioned, I reviewed and approved of the edits. That doesn't mean that everything is 100% accurate as I am sure improvements can be made and everyone makes mistakes. But I'd appreciate it if we use the longstanding version of the article as a starting point and make the comments come more gradually. I can't address all the changes you are making, nor can I track them well. Largely, though, they seem to be restoring content that is POV, inaccurate, and possibly run afoul of plagiarism. If we can examine each edit separately, my concerns can be addressed as you fix the mistakes and otherwise improve the article as you see it needs.LedRush (talk) 16:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Our Genesis vandal

I reported them to AIV. This has gone on long enough. --McDoobAU93 18:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I am looking for the 3rr template, as we should warn him of that as well.LedRush (talk) 18:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

{{subst:uw-3rr}} should do it. --McDoobAU93 18:44, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

There is much more to the story

I am attempting to get permission to post at the ArbCom Fae Workshop talk page to contextualize at least one of the people currently hounding him. NewtonGeek (talk) 03:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Stop

Why are you removing my commentary that is within the topic of the article at hand dude? what is wrong with you?? --Camilo Sánchez Talk to me 20:51, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

It was off-topic and violates WP rules on BLPs (as I clearly explained in my edit).LedRush (talk) 20:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Off topic? I am talking about Armstrong and his titles, how is it off topic, I can't make a sarcastic comment or else you go around deleting stuff? stop censoring users that are well within the collaboration context and right rationale dude. --Camilo Sánchez Talk to me 20:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Camilio; you're wrong. Stop it. pablo 21:02, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry LedRush, I am gonna have to report you for vandalizing my comments and personal attacks. --Camilo Sánchez Talk to me 21:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, but beware the WP:Boomerang.LedRush (talk) 21:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I am not trying to delete anything of what you have written dude, why are you doing this? I am not looking to get this stupid argument escalate, I am respecting the guidelines of the article, what you are doing is restricting my comments in a talk page ...which is meant to TALK!. So please, stop. If you don't like my opinion voice yours, but don't use the technical means of Wikipedia to make your point valid. --Camilo Sánchez Talk to me 21:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

You are making off-topic comments, sometimes with contentious claims about a BLP, on a BLP article. The removal of your comments was valid. If you disagree, fine. You can also bring this to AN/I. However, rather than posting to my talk page, hurling insults, and carpet bombing the Armstrong article with pleas for people to agree with you, you could just let the whole thing go and start discussing the article and how to make it better.LedRush (talk) 21:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Derek Jeter

Please see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Derek Jeter/archive4 for a most exhaustive discussion of how to present Jeter's defense, including his GG awards. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:02, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. However, in the absence of proof that there was, in fact, a controversy over his winning that specific award, it is jarring (as well as against policy) to include that information there. Perhaps there was a controversy (I don't remember one at the time), and if so, I guess it could stay. But my impression has been that some critics have attacked his defense at times, but that, especially before the last couple of years, there wasn't a controversy regarding him getting the actual awards. Most of the criticism was about range.LedRush (talk) 17:38, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I started a discussion on Talk:Derek Jeter as you requested as well.—Bagumba (talk) 17:54, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

BRD

Regarding your edit summary about WP:BRD, I definitely agree. Technically, you made the first bold edit, I reverted, but then you reverted again. At any rate, I have started the discussion. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 17:54, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

You made the edit, which I reverted. But thanks for starting the discussion.LedRush (talk) 18:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Followup RFC to WP:RFC/AAT now in community feedback phase

Hello. As a participant in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion article titles, you may wish to register an opinion on its followup RFC, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion advocacy movement coverage, which is now in its community feedback phase. Please note that WP:RFC/AAMC is not simply a repeat of WP:RFC/AAT, and is attempting to achieve better results by asking a more narrowly-focused, policy-based question of the community. Assumptions based on the previous RFC should be discarded before participation, particularly the assumption that Wikipedia has or inherently needs to have articles covering generalized perspective on each side of abortion advocacy, and that what we are trying to do is come up with labels for that. Thanks! —chaos5023 20:30, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

LA Page, urine tests

Ive reverted teh section to as was for the minute. I plan to fully rewrite all of the doping allegations sections to bring them down in size while retaining the key info and up to date links. Will do the urine section today, a lot of the information isnt needed, but theres also some key stuff missing, needs a full rewrite. Dave Dimspace (talk) 15:14, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I will hold off editing until you're done.LedRush (talk) 15:33, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Lance Armstrong

Hi! I hope you're doing fine. I certainly don't want to create drama over a petty issue, but I thought the award (granted it's not a nice one) is the opposite of the one Sports Illustrated gave them in 2002. Anyway, I had included it in the "other reactions" before, as well as the cascade of fleeing sponsors (with refs). Don't get me wrong, I always try to be unbias, and I don't hate Lance one bit, but we are at a point where the news are going to be unflattering. What do you think about the latter part of "other reactions"? The key of Adelaide and all? Thanks in advance. Mattaidepikiw (Talk) 01:57, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I thought your last effort was much better. And thank you for coming here to talk about this. I think the first sentence is fine, but I think the quote is unnecessary given the nature of the "award". It seems written to inflame (like a tabloid) and it seems WP:UNDUE to me.LedRush (talk) 03:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, I realize you are right about the "citation", it is a bit like a tabloid as you say. Maybe it was a bit sensational on Sports Illustrated part, and that doesn't belong in a WP article, especially one that is so long, so I'll delete it. I'll delete the quote, but not the award. If you have messages or anything you want to share with me (I like chocolate :) feel free to shoot me a message! Seriously, I check in everyday, so messages are more accessible on my page than in edit summaries. Cheers! Mattaidepikiw (Talk) 05:39, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi there

Hi there, LedRush! How are your endeavors here at wikipedia going? Smooth and uninterrupted I hope! Revan (talk) 12:58, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm finding my life is much happier without injecting Wikidrama into it. Thank you, though!LedRush (talk) 02:43, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Sega Genesis RFC to rename the article.

Talk:Sega_Genesis#RFC:_.22Sega_Mega_Drive.22_or_.22Sega_Genesis.22_as_the_article_title.3F--SexyKick 19:26, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I've taken Technotopia's behavior to ANI, if there's anything you would like to add. --McDoobAU93 04:45, 19 October 2013 (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) 16:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, LedRush. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Presidential Memorandum

Hello,

The reason for using the Obama administration's own list of Presidential Memoranda (644) vs the Federal Register (424) is that Presidential Memoranda are not required to be published to the Federal Register. In what way is https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/presidential-memoranda an unverifiable source?Jj111 (talk) 02:42, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I clicked on the link and couldn't find any reference to 644 memoranda. If it's there, you're right and we should use it. I've seen other official sources from 2 years ago which seemed more in line with the 424 number, so I could be duped by other bad sources.LedRush (talk) 04:25, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, LedRush. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, LedRush. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)