User talk:BobMifune

Re: Levin Page

Thanks Bob. If you could refer me on information about how to create a user account that's something I'd like to do. Also, I am planning on replacing the section, but I'm in the process of reworking it first to address some of the constructive criticism that was offered on the discussion page.

Update: please ignore the above message. I was able to find info on creating a user account and have now done so.BigTex71 (talk) 03:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Media Matters for America

Your comment on the Levin talk page about MMFA being "fair and balanced" might strike many people as being rather humorous, to say the least. Indeed, MMFA itself claims to be a watchdog for "conservative misinformation," as founder David Brock calls it. That's hardly NPOV, anymore than the conservative counterparts such as Accuracy in Media are. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 01:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no. Brock is a former light of the conservative movement, and knows whereof he speaks. The frustration exhibited by conservatives over the success of MMFA is understandable, but that doesn't diminish MMFA's reputation as a fair, balanced, and reliable source. --BobMifune (talk) 02:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Both of you blocked for 24 hr for 7 reverts on Mark Levin

Our policy on edit warring - WP:EDITWAR and WP:3RR explicitly prohibit this type of behavior.

This was not acceptable on either of your parts. Both your accounts are blocked for 24 hrs.

Please discuss on talk pages and avoid fighting content back and forth on article pages in the future, when the block expires.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Save your calls for comity until after you deal with this asshole. (I use the term advisedly.) Yesterday, Levin directed his listeners to vandalize his page. Today, he asked them to vandalize the page of a conservative rival. That's the kind of activity I was reverting, as Levin had also begged his listeners to remove the photo of him. There is no 3RR rule against removing vandalism. --BobMifune (talk) 23:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

No - there's a legitimate content dispute over the criticism section of his article, and edit warring over that is not vandalism fighting.

Nobody is discussing that adequately. That needs to be discussed. If you will not take the requirement to discuss issues like this seriously you will end up blocked again.

I understand what they're doing on the back end very well - I'm dealing with this on the OTRS side as well. But anyone who causes further disruption and violates Wikipedia policies relative to Mr Levin at this point - either his fans or normal Wikipedians responding to them - is going to get handled according to our policies. Please do not abuse our policy trying to "defend us" in inappropriate ways. I appreciate not wanting them to run roughshod over Wikipedia policy, and we have no intention of doing that. But many responses to them also ran roughshod over policy and community standards, and that will not do, either. Don't do it. Work with process and be patient. There are numerous senior admins watching this stuff now. Abuse will be dealt with. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

New Section

I believe this is a bit over aggressive. I myself warned the other party involved but he continued to remove the content despite my good faith rollback. --A3RO (mailbox) 04:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the above block was from a few days ago, with another editor. Many thanks for your help tonight. --BobMifune (talk) 04:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

FYI

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Mark_Levin Jimintheatl (talk) 20:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Oops

Need to remember to check which sock you are logged in as before posting, Eleemosynary. [[1]] and [[2]]

Sockpuppet, eh? I thought you had waaaay too much experience and knowledge of how things work at Wikipedia for the number of edits you have on this account. Be gone, sockpuppet! - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)