User talk:Naapple/Archive 2012

Thanks!

Thanks for the typo fixing on Applejack (beverage). :) Steven Walling • talk 04:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Naapple (talk) 05:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not

I don't think they will find anything to that extent. This certain specific editor has dedicated himself entirely to that person but nowhere else on Wikipedia. Of course I find all of the edits to be extremely one sided under the guise of "NPOV" however it has been anything but. My edits encompasses wherever I go in my spare time but that person's edits are becoming a pattern of following every "mistake" so to speak in order to attack the person. ViriiK (talk) 07:51, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I completely agree. Looking back at about 4 pages of their user contributions its pretty clear what's going on. Oh well, I check my watchlist a few times a day. Naapple (talk) 07:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Sandra Fluke

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Sandra Fluke. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Casprings (talk) 03:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I only dropped 2 comments on that page, but yeah, I'll check it out. Thanks. Naapple (Talk)

August 2012

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Mitt_Romney_presidential_campaign,_2012. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Stop edit warring, you are very close to 3RR IRWolfie- (talk) 16:19, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I think I'm about done for now. Naapple (Talk) 16:21, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Forum talk on Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2012 are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 22:21, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even wanna add that crap into the Paul article, or even suggested it, but you or Ravensfire cannot delete my comments, even if you disagree. If you wanna edit out his addition, then do it and I'll let him fight for it's inclusion, but at the very least leave his non-quote comments and mine intact. Naapple (Talk) 22:26, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. We can delete the forum posts you added and your comments per talk page refactoring guidelines. You appear to be less interested in Wikipedia and more interested in promoting candidates running for office. Have you thought of starting a blog? Viriditas (talk) 22:30, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly didn't read either of my posts you deleted. Look at the history of my contributions to Paul's page. This isn't a political issue at all, you're deleting other user's comments. Naapple (Talk) 22:32, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously - this isn't a forum. This isn't a campaign site. This is a summary site. We honestly don't care about the details of something like that. Things like that regularly get removed from talk pages for all the reasons you've been quoted. As a warning, you are also at the 3RR limit, meaning you have reverted 3 times on the same page in 24 hours. If you revert again, you will be reported to the edit war noticeboard and you may end up blocked. Please read through WP:3RR. Stop. Ravensfire (talk) 22:33, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To go a bit farther, as I noted in one of my edit comments, a link to a useful post on some other website that had the full schedule would probably have been fine, especially if it was from an independant, reliable source. The full details ARE NOT needed or wanted on Wikipedia. We summarize information and use the references to link people to the full details. Ravensfire (talk) 22:36, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I misread your initial notice at ANI that it was another user who added in the content. Still, I think you did the right thing here, and I agree that it's not OK to delete an entire section even if some of the material is inappropriate. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 00:15, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm just glad it's all sorted out now. Naapple (Talk) 00:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are a STAR!

		The Exceptional Newcomer Award
		While you haven't been here long, you have made your mark on political articles, in particular Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012. Your efforts are most appreciated. Continued success, and most importantly... HAVE FUN! – Sir Lionel, EG^(talk) 00:12, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I really appreciate that. Naapple (Talk) 00:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Mitt Romney. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Sudo Ghost 20:52, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DRNC

There is no consensus for this edit is a meaningless reason to revert; pre-existing consensus is not required to edit a page, that's the entire point of WP:BRD. It was boldly removed, and then restored, and now it needs to be discussed, and looking at the discussion on the talk page, there's certainly no "consensus to remove" either. - Sudo Ghost 20:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're a little confused. The BRD cycle is this:

BE BOLD, and make what you currently believe to be the optimal change. Any change will do, but it is easier and wiser to proceed based on your best effort. Your change might involve adding, removing, rearranging, re-writing information.
Wait until someone reverts your edit. You have now discovered a Most Interested Person.
Discuss the changes you would like to make with this Most Interested Person, perhaps using other forms of Wikipedia dispute resolution as needed, and reach a compromise.

Apply the compromise by editing the page, after which the cycle repeats.

When people start regularly making non-revert edits again, you are done.

So what happened? Cwobeel added something (1). It was reverted (2). It was discussed in talk (3). But here's where the cycle was broken: a compromise wasn't reached and instead the exact same edit has been added and removed like 8 times.

If this is still confusing there's a picture explaining the edit process in the page you linked. Also, something more applicable to your concerns is here. Regards, Naapple (Talk) 21:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, welcome to Wikipedia. It seems you have a misunderstanding of how editing works, so please take the time to read Help:Editing. After that, if you still believe that "no consensus" is a valid reason remove content instead of discussing, please read WP:DRNC and WP:CONSENSUS, as well as WP:SPA. Thank you. - Sudo Ghost

Thanks for the essays. I'm a tad more interested in policy, though. I'm not too sure I'm going through them, as you didn't read the last thing you linked and I don't feel like again doing research for you. Naapple (Talk) 23:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up...

You've made 3 reverts on the Mitt Romney article within the last 24 hours. One more and you'll break WP:3RR, which would likely result in a temporary block. This isn't meant as a "threat" or anything, because I wouldn't have anything to do with blocking, just wanted to let you know so that you didn't find yourself in that position. Cheers. - Sudo Ghost 02:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. Thank you! --Noleander (talk) 23:13, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article probation notification

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Mitt Romney, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General_sanctions/2012_Presidential_Campaign/Log. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know, thanks. Naapple (Talk) 17:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly nudge

Hello. I noticed some of your comments on Talk:Mitt Romney and invite you to review WP:CIVIL. Note that I've encouraged User:StillStanding-247 to review our harassment guidelines as well. Thank you for your contributions. —Eustress ^talk 16:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Still and I have not gotten along for a while, but you're right, we should remain civil on the public talk page. Naapple (Talk) 17:40, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ISS "warning"

No, your edit was 100% correct with respect to consensus. ISS is being tendentious. I would give him a level 1 warning, but since he has asked me not to contribute to his TP, I won't bother. At some point an uninvolved admin should be asked to come in and read him the riot act. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 21:10, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's good that you respect that Still doesn't want you on his/her talk page. I've asked Still several times to stay off mine to no effect. S/he is always trying to convey some false sense of authority; even giving someone an Admin's Barnstar one time. Idk if that's even legit, but hey, that's Still. Thanks for popping in. Naapple (Talk) 21:17, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're mistaken with regard to policy. There has been a tag-team edit war by conservatives to keep this out of the article despite citations and consensus. Napple and you are both guilty of participating. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 21:12, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your accussation that I have participated in tag-team editing is baseless. Your accusation that I am also a conservative is also full of shit, so I kindly ask to stop your pointless trolling. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 21:15, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see that civility is also a problem for you. I don't know or care whether you are, deep in your heart, truly a conservative. I only see that you tag-team with them to keep cited facts out of articles. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 21:18, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect WP:WADR, you are a wiki-lawyering editor who wouldn't know consensus if it bit them in the ass. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 21:23, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lol! Naapple (Talk) 21:28, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

StillStanding, I have told you this several times before but here it is: Stay off my talk page. You do not need to ever put up "warnings" or what not unless you become an administrator. If you feel I'm breaking some rules and a warning is warranted, do it through the ANB and I'll reply there. I will now continue to delete all your comments on my talk page. Thank you. Naapple (Talk) 21:20, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. Thank you! Psalm84 (talk) 22:02, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check it, thanks. Naapple (Talk) 22:07, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]