User talk:Arzel

Archive 1

NOTE: Chances are I won't be using the talkback function. Don't take it personally, I just don't like it.

New discussion below this line

Occupy_Wall_Street: Undue weight given to primary source. No indication that this was from the University of Indiana from the source. No secondary sourcing to establish weight. Open Access journals are not as high quality

The editor shows little to no knowledge about academic context: PloS One is one of the most prestigious open access journal (cfr PLOS_ONE#Community_recognition_and_citation_information) if not the most prestigious, featuring work from several nobel laureates and top scientists in many disciplines. All the authors of the source study are affiliated to Indiana University (cfr source). The paper cited at source has been peer reviewed by prominent experts in the field and the quality and correctness of its content has been assessed unanimously by the experts during the review process. The weight of the work referred in the source is proved by the thousands views collected in only few days after publication. Please undo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.56.95.109 (talk) 19:40, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

The paper is post published peer reviewed, not pre-published peer reviewed. That many notable people have published there does not undo this fact. I personally tend to weight actual peer reivewed journals much higher than open access portals, indeed I recieve 2 to 3 requests a week to submit to various open access journals. Aside from this, you attributed the work to the University of Indiana, which I find interesting as I could not find this within the actual paper. This leads me to believe that it is not associated at all with the University of Indiana or that you personally know one of authors (or are one of the authors) and have some additional knowledge regarding the paper. Additionally, if this is truely notable research than it will be picked up by secondary reliable sources. Find some secondary sources that provide the summary, do not use the paper to make first hand reporting of a primary source. Arzel (talk) 20:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

The first two editor's concern have been addressed in the comment below, from one of the authors of the work. (i) Work appearing on PLoS ONE is rigorously peer-reviewed by world-leading experts prior to the acceptance for publication [1]. The peer-review process of the cited paper started on October 18, 2012 and was completed with acceptance on January 4, 2013. The publication on the journal followed after two months, on March 6, 2013 (cfr source). (ii) Affiliation of the authors to Indiana University is clearly stated on line *three* of the paper: Center for Complex Networks and Systems Research, School of Informatics and Computing, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana, United States of America (cfr PDF). To address the final comment, I deem more than sufficient that a panel of renown academic experts considered the cited source worth of publication on the journal to assess the merit and the notability of findings therein contained. This information adds much more value than several references (already present in the entry) to posts that appeared on magazines or online blogs that did not undergo to any type of process of review, but that present the point of view of single individuals or small editorial offices. Also, please note that the entry already contains references to some other journal articles (cfr., e.g., Refs 66 and 153) that do not have particular visibility and appeared on journals certainly less prominent or high-impact than Plos One. Due to the reasons explained above I'd ask the editor to reconsider and undo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:18E8:2:1189:2583:BBFD:B02E:F495 (talk) 00:02, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

From PLOS ONE, PLOS ONE will rigorously peer-review your submissions and publish all papers that are judged to be technically sound. Judgments about the importance of any particular paper are then made after publication by the readership (who are the most qualified to determine what is of interest to them). This tells me two very important facts. The importance of the paper towards the research field is determined by readers and that the journal editors make no judgement about the paper other than the technical soundness of the paper. Thus, it is up to secondary sources to determine the notability of the paper and thus the weight which should be given to the paper. If no secondary sources comment on this paper than it is likely that the paper has provided little of value. I realize that there has been a push towards open access type journals over the past few years. I recieved two invitations to submit papers today and one yesterday. Unfortunately, they just don't carry the same weight as traditional peer reviewed journals, and from my experience they are valued far less in the academic world. Now this is not to say that they have no value, just that their value needs to be assessed from a secondary source, not WP editors. As to what is already in that article, I agree it is not very well sourced. I suggest you help fix it by removing poor sources. Arzel (talk) 02:28, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Please note that whether a publication is open access or not is a completely independent issue of whether it has weight or impact. In the academic world, the impact of a journal is measured by various metrics, such as the impact factor (you can easily learn about that so I won't explain it here). There are plenty of high-impact open access sources (Nature Scientific Reports, Nature Communications, and PLOS ONE to mention a few) and there are plenty of trash non-open access venues (too many to mention). The fact that you and I get daily invitations to (typically for-profit) open-access trash says nothing about high-impact publications, such as PLOS ONE, which happens to be open access, non-profit, and high-impact. I hope that helps eliminate some confusion. Fmenczer (talk) 03:47, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I am one of the authors of the paper cited in the deleted passage and I did not write the deleted passage, however I would like to correct two misperceptions mentioned above: (1) Papers in PLOS ONE are rigorously peer-reviewed prior to being accepted for publication [2]. Please note that the Wikimedia Foundation is pushing toward usage of open access publications. As noted by Arzel not all OA venues are reputable and peer-reviewed, but PLOS ONE certainly is. (2) the Indiana University affiliation is clearly indicated on the paper (PDF download [3] or online at [4]). Fmenczer (talk) 21:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I have no serious problems with quality open access papers, only that they have secondary sources summarizing them to establish weight. Arzel (talk) 02:28, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

In making the case for notability of the findings in the deleted passage, would it be helpful that they were presented as an invited keynote of the Workshop on Politics, Elections and Data (PLEAD2012)? Quote: "The workshop will include Filippo Menczer as a keynote speaker" and from the abstract of the keynote: "Related to political communication are questions about the birth of online social movements. Social media data provides an opportunity to look for signatures that capture these seminal events." [5]. In the academic world, an invited keynote is usually evidence of notability but I am not an expert WP editor. For additional evidence, the work is also mentioned in Politico (see [6] p. 3) and the work of the team on social media and politics has received significant attention in the press [7]. Is this the kind of secondary sources that are required to establish weight? Fmenczer (talk) 03:47, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Politico would be a good secondary source, but it does not mention the research specifically in relation to OWS. I wouldn't even know that it was being discussed if I had not read the paper and known who one of the authors was. Being a keynote is good for the notability of the speaker, not so much for something they wrote. A good secondary source would specifically mention the research paper, what it found, and provide a summary of the paper. That summary would then be summarized and potentially included. Arzel (talk) 20:47, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Please allow me to edit the hydraulic fracturing page with information regarding health impacts that are properly cited from peer reviewed scientific journals. Luchi1223 (talk) 03:45, 30 March 2013 (UTC)luchi1223

For one thing, most of your edit is clearly not from a neutral point of view. You start by trying to imply that any study which does not show your point of view to be invalid. The "research" which you did include is not showing up as notable in the least. I tried to track down a couple of papers and they are linked back to a NY activist group against fracking with the only other google links coming back into WP forming a circular link. I could find no main stream sources talking about the research at all, thus what you were adding is undue weight and very much biased. WP is not the place to promote activism. Arzel (talk) 05:05, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

At the very least, the health impacts I reported are valid and backed by scientific research. I have added links to each article I cited. If after reviewing the credible sources you still have a question of the reliability of my sources, then I can do more research. I am not trying to promote any view, I am neutral on the subject, my aim is to convey the message that the potential health effects of natural gas development have not been studied until last year, and more research is needed before we can make a definitive statement on whether or not negative health effects due to fracking exist. Luchi1223 (talk) 05:28, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Rubio

You may not use personal observation (i.e. original research) to claim that all criticism comes from "liberals". You would need a reliable source that makes this assertion. Yworo (talk) 23:36, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Krugman is a well-known self-admitted liberal. No original research needed so there is no need to keep your head in the sand. Arzel (talk) 23:37, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't deny that, but you are generalizing from it in an unsourced manner. That's not acceptable. Yworo (talk) 23:40, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

What genearlization? All the criticism has come from the left. Name one non-left person to make that criticism. It is highly POV to simply say commentators like it is a general criticism when it clearly is not. Arzel (talk) 23:41, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

You need a source that says that. You can't observe it yourself, it has to be sourced! Yworo (talk) 23:42, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

To quote our policy on no original research: "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." You have not provided a source that supports the contention that "All the criticism has come from the left." Yworo (talk) 23:44, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I know the policies, but one does not need a source to say that the sky is blue. Seriously, use some common sense. Arzel (talk) 23:47, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

But that's not what you're saying: You're saying that "All skies are blue" (on every planet). Yworo (talk) 23:49, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Not even close. Mike Konczal of the Progressive Rooseveult Institute, Paul Krugman, Huffpo, Ed Schultz, Froma Harrup, etc. It is the left. Now it has been no secret that conservatives believe that the government was directly to blame for the housing crisis, while the left has been equally adament that it was the fault of big banks. Why be obtuse about it? Arzel (talk) 23:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Why pretend you don't know that a reliable third-party source must make the observation, not a WIkipedia editor. Yworo (talk) 00:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Besides which, even the fact that the sky appears to be blue should be, and is, cited to reliable sources in the article on sky. Complete red herring. Yworo (talk) 00:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I need to appologize for those statements, you did not deserve them. Sincerely. Arzel (talk) 02:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Accepted. I'd forgotten that was you. Yworo (talk) 02:17, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Funny, I had forgotten this was you as well. I saw what I had said, and felt like a pretty big ass. Arzel (talk) 02:19, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I've said elsewhere that many of my best allies on WP are editors I got into some sort of disagreement with at first meeting. It's still true. Yworo (talk) 02:21, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I guess I should say, now that you have cause to believe it, that while I do prefer (in my phrase) the "lefter of the two evils", I believe everyone should be treated with respect no matter which side they are on politically. The other day a FB page I had been following for some time made a post that was no more than a gratuitous (and obscene) insult against Reagan. Now, I really disliked him when he was President, but he was the President and should be treated with due respect and valid, civilized criticism. Plus, I'd have preferred a raised-from-the-dead zombie Reagan to Dubya any day of the week. I stopped following that FB page, they'd crossed a line. Yworo (talk) 02:27, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I would probably prefer a zombie Reagan to dubya as well, but for different reasons.  :) As hard as it may be to believe for some editors here I am actually quite middle of the road for most things and upset my dad to no end for not voting for Bush senior. I agree both sides should be treated with due respect, and thankfully I haven't had to unfriend anyone yet on FB. I'll keep my fingers crossed on that one. Arzel (talk) 02:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

It was a "page", not a person, thankfully. Yworo (talk) 03:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

3RR warning

Your recent editing history at Koch Industries shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. . Cowicide (talk) 04:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

A couple of edits, involving different people, involving different article sections, going on hot and heavy does not constitute an edit war. WP:DTTR applies as well. – S. Rich (talk) 04:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

KochPAC

This edit overlooks the fact that there is nothing open to interpretation about this information. The CRP's publications are based directly on FEC data.   — C M B J   15:00, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

And....The entire section is sourced to one source. Nothing wrong in mentioning this fact. Arzel (talk) 15:27, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

To be clear, titling a section "2011–2012 activities According to the Center for Responsive Politics" is what I took issue with here. It clearly casts doubt on (or suggests bias of) the reports when we have no basis to imply a defect in transcription. There is nothing wrong with mentioning the CRP's publications in a non-invasive, inline fashion as you did with the other portion of the edit, but that's more than sufficient given the context and footnotes.   — C M B J   15:39, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. KillerChihuahua 02:23, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

An RFAR has been filed

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Tea Party movement / US politics and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, KillerChihuahua 05:57, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Binders full of women for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Binders full of women 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/Binders full of women until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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 template from the top of the article.

Very Serious People

I noticed you were editing against the page, please stop. If you believe it violates BLP you can take it up in a noticeboard but otherwise do not edit-war in the article. CartoonDiablo (talk) 18:51, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I see you don't like Paul Ryan. Arzel (talk) 20:55, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

We should have reported CD right away. I'd have done so if I'd bothered to look at his block log, since he can be presumed to be aware of 3RR having been blocked for it before, there was no need for me to make a warning and wait. Yworo (talk) 01:38, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't like to run off to the boards unless absolutely neccessary. I just assume that others will be rational when presented a logical choice. Arzel (talk) 01:40, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Very funny. I've never noticed that happening after the 4th revert. Yworo (talk) 02:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

3RR warning 2

Your recent editing history at Bill McKibben shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

No offense intended, but you have reverted 3 times in the past 8 hours. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:33, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

No worries. I wasn't planning on reverting it again even though it clearly does not belong. Arzel (talk) 00:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Re: Binders full of women (2nd nomination)

I looked over the closure instructions and the information on non-admin closures. Nowhere does it require a rationale. In addition, the general consensus when I closed it looked to me like a keeper, and the article was open for over 7 days, negating your short while. Therefore, I am reverting your revert and re-closing the debate. If you have a further issue with this closure, please contact an admin to re-open the AfD ShawnIsHere: Now in colors 04:20, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Considering you provided no reasoning I made a note as such on the talk page and the discussion. It is terribly bad taste to not at least provide some rational, just what makes you so special? Arzel (talk) 04:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I guess you do not really care what other editors have to say. Arzel (talk) 04:54, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Tea Party movement arbitration case opened

An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 20, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:38, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Bush Derangement Syndrome for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bush Derangement Syndrome 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/Bush Derangement Syndrome (6th nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Yworo (talk) 18:04, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback deployment

Hey Arzel; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Notice of No Original Research Noticeboard discussion

Hello, Arzel. 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. Thank you.

Orson Scott Card ref

Thanks for re-writing the OSC petition statement. While I understand that that was the effect, I want to clarify that adding the source wasn't done to promote a cause...I just figured that in a case like that, citing the primary source seemed the most appropriate, since it would inherently be the most up-to-date. Re-writing to not require an update at all is probably the better way to go, though, and as you said, avoids any appearance of trying to promote a specific cause. – RobinHood70 ^talk 18:13, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

word usage correction - affect as a verb

Just a quick heads up, you used "effect" improperly in the sentence that began "I don't doubt that diet can effect mental acuity..." It should be "affect" here. "Affect" is the verb, "effect" is the noun. Maybe it was just a typo but I thought I'd point it out just to be sure. Squish7 (talk) 00:41, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, as much as I try, my English skills will never reach the level of my Sister. Arzel (talk) 02:43, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

140 years is long enough

I noticed that you have reverted one of my edits with the reason "Too early to make this a statement of fact. Time required to verify this research" The question of why, the annual mean, the Northern Hemisphere is warmer than the Southern Hemisphere was first presented in a 1870 paper by James Croll. it has been shown from satellite data that northward cross-equatorial ocean heat transport is critical for the Northern Hemisphere to be warmer. So why did you remove it?. You also then said "non-sourced doc as well for second ref". The second doc was published in the American Meteorological Society, Journal of Climate, hardly unsourced. There was no real reason why the edit was reverted, I will be reverted the change you made unless you can provide some scientific evidence of an alternate reason why the NH is warmer than the SH. David.moreno72 (talk) 09:10, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

One paper just released does not have scientific concensus for a statement of fact. Look I see you guys play this game on the other side. Any research which shows that AGW does not exist is has to be in the literature for some time for additional verification. Your addition is simply one paper without any other research to back up the statements. As such it is, as your game is played, a current fringe view. You have to wait until additional research proves that this particular paper is the scientific concensus. Arzel (talk) 13:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Tea Party movement Moderated discussion

A discussion is taking place at Talk:Tea Party movement/Moderated discussion to get consensus on finding and addressing the main points of contention on the article, and moving the article to a stable and useful condition. As you are a significant contributor to the article, your involvement in the discussion would be valued and helpful. As the discussion is currently looking at removing a substantial amount of material, it would be appropriate for you to check to see what material is being proposed for removal, in case you have any concerns about this. If you feel you would rather not get involved right now, that is fine; however, if you later decide to get involved and directly edit the article to reverse any consensus decisions, that might be seen as disruptive. Re-opening discussion, however, may be acceptable; though you may find few people willing to re-engage in such a discussion, and if there are repeated attempts to re-open discussion on the same points, that also could be seen as disruptive. The best time to get involved is right now. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

2013 IRS scandal

I have restored the photo. The context is simply there was a protest May 21 2013 (today) by Tea Party and FairTax groups about IRS partisan singling out of groups. There were more protests at different sites in New Jersey which were better attended. If better photos become available perhaps we can substitute them in; right now the article has no photos, and one photo is better than none.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Except that it is your photo and there is no way to know that it is actually what you are saying it is. Arzel (talk) 02:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Is this something I would lie about? Make up signs? I was there at the IRS office in Mountainside. It is a legitimate photo. Removing the photo seems like you pushing a pro-IRS agenda or anti-FairTax agenda.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 09:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC) You are being watched; if you keep deleting photos I will complain about your POV-agenda on the administrator noticeboard.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

You need to step back and take your personal feelings out of the article, and stop pushing your personal POV regarding the article. I am not pushing any agenda, but you are not doing yourself any favors with your obvious WP:COI Arzel (talk) 17:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Love history & culture? Get involved in WikiProject World Digital Library!

World Digital Library Wikipedia Partnership - We need you!

Hi Arzel! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the World Digital Library, a project of the Library of Congress and UNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Wikipedia using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Please sign up to participate here. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! SarahStierch (talk) 22:02, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Asking permission to refactor on ANI

Hi, Arzel; read you comment on Caspring's ANI, and thanks for support, but the issue (Mourdock selective quote) wasn't the one being brought. Was going to insert a subheading to sector that away from the easy dealing with King WP:BLP violations Casprings is inserting, but figured I should ask first. Cheers.

PS; obviously the article has WP:BLP issues at every paragraph, was trying to deal with them in small groups, rather than all at once. Need to put King to bed (and maybe Bartlett) before fully dealing with the Mourdock section. And then...... and then......etc. In no way disagree with your points, and the WP:BLP issue discussion ARE transferable from one Article to another.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 15:14, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

That is the problem with an article with so many problems. I looked at some of your edit that Casprings reverted and immediately noticed that one BLP violation and just assumed that this was the one you were currently focused. Feel free to refractor. Arzel (talk) 15:50, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks, it will improve readability--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 15:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 02:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

I hope you will take part in order to resolve any issues in the article.Casprings (talk) 02:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement suspended

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that the Tea Party Movement case be suspended until the end of June 2013 to allow time for the Tea Party movement/Moderated discussion. Pages relating to the Tea Party movement, in any namespace, broadly construed, are placed under discretionary sanctions until further notice. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 15:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Lizz Winstead

Thank you for restoring the BLP violation. How typical of you. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

You reason for removal was becuase you didn't like the source. If you want to argue the merits of the addition, that is an entirely different situation. Additionally, I am not sure how you can claim BLP violation, when it is her own words. Arzel (talk) 15:31, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Use of RfCs and requests for formal closures

Please see the notice I posed here. Regards, --RA (talk) 20:24, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

4RR

By the way, you're at 4RR at Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012. You know better than that. Don't do that again. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:34, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

You should learn how to count before faux warnings. And I'll note that you don't provide the same logic to your fellow agenda driven editors like Casprings. I might have more respect for your approach if it was applied evenly. Arzel (talk) 21:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Tea Party movement case resumed

This message is to inform you that the Arbitration Committee has decided to resume the Tea Party movement case, which currently is in its voting stages.

Regards, — ΛΧΣ²¹ 16:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. CartoonDiablo (talk) 05:27, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Tea Party arbcom Case

I recently came across this. I'd like to make a statement to ArbCom about the case. But is there an appropriate forum for that? Or is it too late?William Jockusch (talk) 05:44, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I haven't really had the time to pay attention to this recently. The pace of discussion requires more time than I have available. You might want to talk to North. Arzel (talk) 06:17, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I filed a WP:DRN on Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012

I filled a WP:DRN on Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012. I would ask that we put the past behind and come to some comprise language where there remains disputes. The link to the discussion is here. Casprings (talk) 03:03, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Wrong link to the discussion. It is here. Casprings (talk) 03:31, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Stalking

Dude, you look like you're making a habit of following me around and undoing what I write. Back off or I'll report you. MilesMoney (talk) 03:48, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Dude, Those are pages which I have been following, perhaps you are stalking me. Work constructively with others. Arzel (talk) 04:38, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Re: March Against Monsanto

Remove accusatory quote per NPOV

There is no such proscription in the NPOV policy, and if you continue to make stuff up like this I will be forced to escalate the issue. The quote, "American journalist Jake Tapper of CNN says that Monsanto has "a history of questionable ethics practices and close ties to the government", is properly attributed to a reliable source and is not controversial. In other words, reliable sources are in parity. Now, if you disagree, you will provide reliable sources that say otherwise. We don't remove content because YOUDONTLIKEIT. Viriditas (talk) 04:13, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

He's doing it on Steve King, too. MilesMoney (talk) 07:12, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up on this. We should refrain from using comedy programs as sources on BLPs. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:55, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Arzel, you still have not answered my question. I have posted the same question on the talk page. If you can't justify your edits, why should I not revert them? Do I have any other choice? Viriditas (talk) 01:30, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Tea Party movement case - final decision motion

This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a motion (which affects you) has been proposed to close the Tea Party movement case. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:00, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion

Hi, I understand you have been personal attacked by an IP editor and I know that personal attacks are stricly prohibited on Wikipedia, but if another user personal attacks you again, contact me and I will warn that user about doing so again and I will contact an administrator. Thanks. WisconsinBoyClevelandRocks228844 (talk) 23:29, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Wow. I just saw the diff you linked at WP:ANI. A bit of friendly advice: be careful, and geolocate that IP. If you need any help or further advice, let me know. regards .... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 01:40, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool update

Hey Arzel. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.

We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.

Again, we're very sorry about this issue; hopefully it'll be smooth sailing after this :). If you have any questions, just drop them at the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) 21:32, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement closed

An arbitration case, in which you were named as party, has now closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

Pages related to the Tea Party movement, broadly construed, are placed under discretionary sanctions. This sanction supersedes the existing community sanctions.

The current community sanctions are lifted.

Goethean (talk · contribs), North8000 (talk · contribs), Malke 2010 (talk · contribs), Xenophrenic (talk · contribs), Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs), Ubikwit (talk · contribs), Phoenix and Winslow (talk · contribs) are indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to the Tea Party movement, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed to the Arbitration Committee after no less than six months have passed from the closing of this case.

Collect (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from all pages relating to the Tea Party movement, broadly construed. This topic ban will expire after six months from the date this case is closed on.

Xenophrenic (talk · contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, Collect (talk · contribs) anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions).

Snowded (talk · contribs) and Phoenix and Winslow (talk · contribs) are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, each other anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions).

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:04, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Talk:RealClearPolitics. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — v/r - TP 20:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thanks for the Barnstar! Very difficult article and it's not even a topic I'm overly interested in editing, but it's one of those articles that I read one day and had to comment. It just seemed to suck me in from there. Hopefully we can come to a good compromise as I dread the work involved with taking it up the conflict resolution chain. Morphh ^(talk) 14:31, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

PPACA

Heads up. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:17, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Wait, what was the lie?

Hi there Arzel,

You left an edit summary at MAM saying your were correcting me by removing a "blatant lie", but failed to mention what it was. I am left stumped. Could you enlighten me? Thanks, petrarchan47tc 07:13, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

It is one thing to remove the 200,000 that you so dislike but to then say that no other estimate has been made is beyond the pale. Not on do we know this to not be true, it is impossible to verify a negative. Arzel (talk) 15:26, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Where is proof of the other estimate? Were you privy to the recent RS noticeboard here it was concluded no other estimate was ever claimed or found? We collectively recognized the fact that a number 'mentioned' is a far cry from an estimate. Only one estimate was made. Do you care about consensus? Further, edit summaries cannot be little more than an attack void of usable information. You should have said, "Yes, There is another estimate, and here is the source (adding proof to article)". You did neither. petrarchan47tc 23:28, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

User Al.dobyns

Thanks for keeping up with the trolling user Al.dobyns who's vandalizing the Washington Redskins article. I was trying to keep up with it but couldn't keep after it when I stopped to eat lunch! 1995hoo (talk) 17:44, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk:PPACA October 2013

No offense, but your "arguments" have really devolved in this most recent round. When I explain why a source is unreliable, or a subject is non-notable, citing WP policy no less, and all your response is, "Dr. Fleischman is wrong, it's notable/reliable."... well, I suppose you can say that, but:

1. You're not going to convince many people. In fact, it might undercut your position as some editors might see it an implicit admission that you can't back it up.
2. It's not going to affect whether there's consensus either way.
3. It's arguably tendentious editing.

I thought we've found a little common ground lately? Let's try to get along please, respect each other's positions even when we disagree with them? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:29, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I can disagree and respect your opinion regarding Obamacare, but your opinion regarding what is a reliable source is not backed up by our guidelines. You appear to have blanket regarded a whole host of sources as unreliable because they don't toe the government line. Arzel (talk) 18:37, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I never said the sources were unreliable because they didn't toe the government line. I said they were unreliable because they were opinion pieces. Opinion pieces are unreliable regardless of whose line they toe. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:40, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I know, and I told you that opinion pieces, by definition, are not unreliable. You seem to have a basic misunderstanding of the term. You may not like the opinion, but that does not make it unreliable. Furthermore, opinion pieces from otherwise reliable sources have been long declared to be reliable. Should they be attributed? Yes, but that is entirely different than being unreliable. Arzel (talk) 18:45, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:29, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Your rationale?

Could you please explain why you're edit-warring to restore commentary from a banned sockpuppeteer at Talk:Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act? You're acting against the blocking policy, in addition to edit-warring. I'm trying and failing to come up with a plausibly constructive rationale for your actions, so I thought I'd ask you directly. MastCell ^Talk 19:37, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Sock puppet or not, much of the information included is perfectly fine for the article and/or discussion. I have never understood the rationale for going all 1984 on the talk pages for a non-person. Arzel (talk) 20:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I think you're seeing that a number of other editors feel that the material is not useful in any way to building a better article, and that by edit-warring over it you're enabling a banned sockpuppeteer to continue disrupting the talkpage. I also don't get the 1984 analogy; no one is denying the existence or historical reality of Grundle2600. Thousands of his contributions remain across the project. We're just saying that, by virtue of being incorrigibly disruptive, he's no longer welcome to contribute to this website. MastCell ^Talk 20:10, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Progressive tax

Never thought we'd be on the same side of a discussion, but on the efforts to include that Graph, we are.Mattnad (talk) 01:43, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

On the same topic you recently deleted my source & edit claiming the source was not published. It is clearly published by the Brookings Institute.http://www.hamiltonproject.org/papers/just_how_progressive_is_the_u.s._tax_code/Lance Friedman (talk) 19:03, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Medieval Warm Period

Hi Arzel, regarding this edit you just made, please see the source which clearly states:

The Medieval period is found to display warmth that matches or exceeds that of the past decade in some regions, but which falls well below recent levels globally[8]

emphasis added. This supports clearly the statement "..globally the Medieval Warm Period was cooler than recent global temperatures.." with no justification to dilute this to may have been. I'd appreciate if you could self-rv. Thank you. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 21:37, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Nevermind, I see Nigelj just reverted your edit explaining the same thing I did above. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 21:39, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Nice to see so called science people make non-scientific statements. Dogma is bad...unless it supports AGW I guess. Arzel (talk) 23:56, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

October 2013

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Ludwig von Mises Institute. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Please do not claim a WP:BLP exception, as there is absolutely no merit to such a claim. MilesMoney (talk) 02:01, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

A more strident POV pusher I have not seen very often. I will be bringing your repeated violations of BLP to the appropriate board when I have more free time. Arzel (talk) 03:42, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

There is absolutely, positively no BLP violation here. You are, however, edit-warring, assuming bad faith, and being uncivil. So feel free to report me. MilesMoney (talk) 03:46, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Arzel, you're just objectively wrong here. That sounds pretentious but it's true. You're saying 1+1≠2. "Them" clearly refers to 'racists, anti-semites, and conspiracy theorists' in the relevant passage. You're just confused because the terms are separated by a few lines. Steeletrap (talk) 06:31, 26 October 2013 (UTC) UPDATE: I have emailed Bernstein and he rejects your view that he is being misrepresented. Of course, many users also discerned that from the objective logical meaning of tte passage. It's time to close this BLP. Steeletrap (talk) 23:34, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Why would anyone take your absolute word that one; you emailed Bernstein and he responded, and two; that he said what you said. Pretty much anyone could claim something like that. It doesn't even matter if it is 100% true, it is completely unusable. Arzel (talk) 02:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

1) Please assume good faith and do not insinuate that I am a liar. 2) I am thrilled to forward the email to an admin. Steeletrap (talk) 03:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

It is not a matter of believing you are not, it is a matter of reliable sourcing. Knowing your position on this issue how can one assume that your query to him was presented in a neutral tone? Additionally, given the circumstances it is simply difficult to accept your assentation as you have stated them. It would be far better for Bernstein to submit his views in a better manner. If we have to rely on personal email to a individual to clarify a statement that is of questionable value to begin with than I think that is a troublesome path to follow. Aside from this, my argument is from all appearances a minor aspect of the whole issue. There appears to be a much greater issue with other BLP issues outside of the one I presented. Your email to Bernstein does not address that issue in the least. Arzel (talk) 03:25, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I would be willing to have an admin log onto my (fake WP) email to verify the exchange. Would that satisfy you? (I would need 24 hours or so to delete all indicators of my real identity.) Steeletrap (talk) 03:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to do whatever you would like to do. If an admin is satisfied with your email than I certainly wouldn't fight it. My primary concern was that we do not attribute something to someone that they did not explicitly state. But like I said, I think that my argument is probably a minor aspect to some of the concerns that have been brought up. Arzel (talk) 04:00, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

OR on Rand Paul

Rand Paul said he supported the Supreme Court ruling, which struck down Article 3 of DOMA, which defined marriage at a federal level (as between a man and a woman). That position is consistent with his state's rights view. He did not say he supported repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, which contains many other provisions (notably, the right of states to refuse to recognize gay marriage in other states). Please revert your OR in this regard, and your reversion of my prior edits. There is no reason to believe his position from this January (against gay marriage, and against federal attempts to define marriage) has changed substantively. Steeletrap (talk) 01:51, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

There is no reason think it hasn't. We can only go with what we know now. We certainly can't say that he doesn't have an opinion when he has since stated his opinion regarding DOMA. That said I removed "supported" and put in that he thought it was appropriate. Also, against my better judgment, I did add in a little of Maddow's beef with Paul. Arzel (talk) 02:30, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Now I'm just confused. You added more OR, this time negative, stating that Paul thinks non-traditional marriage will lead to polygamy etc. That may be what he was saying (it sure seems like that to me, and to other liberal commentators) but he denies that, claiming it was a joke and related not to gay marriage but to a more broad statement about the abandonment of social mores in determining marriage laws. I directly quoted Paul's remarks before (and his defense that the comments were a joke), bereft of commentary, yet you reverted it, implying it was biased against Paul. And now you add this negative OR. Please restore my original remarks, which are more neutral and charitable to Paul than your addition.

Also, I know it's a pain, but try not to add bare links. As you're obviously a very able and savvy user, it's reasonable to expect you to cite them properly. Steeletrap (talk) 17:19, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Whoa, common ground.

I'm not all bad, eh? :-) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:30, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Uncommon bedfellows.  :) Arzel (talk) 20:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Well that ends that saga. Back to my usual bashing Arzel over the head with a blunt instrument. (Well, hopefully not.) :-) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:59, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

A pie for you!

Happy Halloween! Steeletrap (talk) 02:42, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion (Attleboro)

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.

(Cross-posting from User talk for Dr F.) Orthogonius, Attleboro, User:Somedifferentstuff, 72.37.249.60 are all socks of banned User:Mbhiii/Trift/Welhaven etc. He gets block/banned and just comes back with more socks for another year or two before it happens again. 173.123.51.98 (talk) 00:42, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a sockpuppet of anyone and this IP needs to know that he can get blocked for making false accusations. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 00:18, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Pink slime and Beef Products, Inc.

Hi Arzel,

You just reverted an edit I made to pink slime where I explicitly named [Beef Products, Inc.]] as the source of a dispute around the term "pink slime" and claimed that they produce most of it. In your edit description, you wrote that "they" (with which I believe you are referring to Beef Products) are already discussed in the end of the lead and that I made a statement which needs sourcing. About the first of your concerns, that Beef Products are named later in the lead, I still believe the sentence "Pink slime has been claimed by some (...), however this is disputed by the FDA administrator (...), as well as by the company." to be confusing, as "the company" isn't specified, and no company is named earlier in the text. The reference for that statement, however, links to a page by Beef Products ([9]), and thus, I think it is proper to write out their name in the text at that place. This leads to your second concern, as the previous reference also states that "Beef Products, Inc. is the world’s leading producer of Lean Finely Textured Beef (...)". I will find another reference for the claim that they are the largest producer, but I don't think having that claim on the page until then is a too bad. What do you think?

--Kimsey0 (talk) 23:35, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Here's article from Chicago Tribune which claims that they're the largest producer of the product. --Kimsey0 (talk) 23:42, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I did a partial revert based off your info, but I just referred to them as the largest U.S. producer. What they produce is implied without having to make a direct statement which could be viewed as POVish. Beef Products certainly doesn't call the product Pink Slime. Arzel (talk) 02:04, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. That's great! --Kimsey0 (talk) 10:21, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Newsmax

Greetings. Your input is requested in the discussion at [10]. Thank you.CFredkin (talk) 01:25, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Tom Latham

Greetings. Your input is requested at Tom Latham. There's an IP user trying to add unsourced content and refusing to engage in Talk. Thank you.CFredkin (talk) 21:45, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Notification

Hi, if you haven't already, please take note of the details of Template:Austrian economics enforcement. This is a general reminder, and not given in response to misconduct. I've decided to err on the side of caution to try to make sure that people involved in this topic area are aware of the discretionary sanctions. Consider this a "no-fault" notification. If you're already aware (which you probably are), feel free to remove this message. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:46, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Tea Party Movement

I may not do it, because of the topic ban, but could you

1. Remove Category:Tea Party movement from Category:People associated with the Tea Party movement (wrong order)
2. Request renaming Category:People associated with the Tea Party movement to Category:People affiliated with the Tea Party movement, and trimming to those appropriate, per WP:BLPCAT
3. Request trimming Category:Tea Party movement also to those organizations for which reliable sources make the connection.

I see you reverted one of Jay942942's edits. There are probably others which are equally absurd. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:18, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey, Arzel, I hear you're the go-to guy for evading topic bans! I'm not allowed to edit Ludwig von Mises Institute, so could you please edit it for me?! I'll pay whatever Arthur is paying you! KTHXBYE!!! MilesMoney (talk) 18:52, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not clear how serious any of the above is (MilesMoney's post in particular seems sarcastic), but in case either of these requests are taken at face value, please review WP:PROXYING and be aware that making edits at the request of a (topic or otherwise) banned user makes you subject to the same remedies that could be applied to them. --RL0919 (talk) 21:05, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Miles was just being Miles and sticking his little nose into something that he should not. Arzel (talk) 14:42, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree I shouldn't have done that. Conversely, I have restored edits made a blocked editor (after reverting them) if it's the right thing to do. On the third hand, reverting BLP violations (as would be indicated under point 2, but which I choose to discuss, rather than to do) is generally allowed under a topic ban.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Talk page commentary

Your recent comments on several article talk pages, combined with what I would characterize as obstructionism and edit warring, suggests that your purpose here is to restore balance to the political universe by requiring users to edit according to your personal political views, irrespective of Wikipedia policy. I've seen several recent examples that give me pause:

• "It would be far easier to accept these edits as good faith if the same actors were so zelous about attacking their commrades on the left."
• "The goal of this article is to continually attack Republicans. Just wait until 2016 when it is used to attack Republicans in favor of Clinton."
• "IP, the goal of this article is to attack Republicans now for political purposes. Historical accuracy is of limited value."
• "So there is a new attempt to try and attack the Koch Brothers.... I realize that there are ongoing attempts to try and make the Koch Brothers look like bogymen,..."
• "Liberalism at its finest. Free speech for all unless it is the wrong kind of free speech. No place better than wp to turn a molehill into a mountain."
• "It is really tiring to have activist with an axe to grind against a specific group come to WP to push their point of view."

Look. I'm guilty of occasionally having made similar comments in the heat of the moment, but I almost always redact them out of respect for my peers. You seem to make these types of comments frequently. I recommend that you learn to discuss content, not motivations, or I'm almost certain that you find yourself topic banned from a great many articles that you probably enjoy editing. Wikipedia is not a BATTLEGROUND.- MrX 19:27, 6 December 2013 (UTC)