31:
499:
foods, such as blueberries". I don't see a reason why blueberries deserve to be mentioned but blackcurrants or bilberries don't(!). I gave more arguments on why new informations should be included in a discussion panel. If you had bothered to reply it instead of making hints and threatening, this discussion wouldn't have got "personal" in the first place. Seems like you have fun in overusing power.
420:
important for people to read. If not it would have been more appropriate to put this in the discussion section or to consult me directly. As per the custom here it is also appropriate to put your reason and complaint on my talk page so I don't have to dig through pages of logs. What is supposed to be meant by calling someone a "muddy boots of the victory marchers"?
381:
misdirected. You should read the decision, which I cited in my edits. The quotations are 100% accurate. If you choose not to restore my edits, you will perpetuate an inaccurate account of
California's legal history on marriage and compromise the value of Knowledge (XXG) articles as truthful and factual.
507:
Did you read the edits I made? What do you object to specifically? Would it be better to remove the part on the demographics completely since it is entirely based on the CNN exit poll which does not provide basic information on the locations of it interviews? Why is that exit poll sacred? I would
498:
The article on Coca-Cola includes informations on its competition (namely Pepsi) and there hasn't been any tirant to forbid these informations ex cathedra. I haven't mentioned any specific product though. I only extended an already present thought on "more cost-effective conventional antioxidant-rich
439:
Please refrain from removing relevant discussions from the talk page under the pretense of reverting "vandalism." I neither edited nor altered any other individual's contributions; I merely added a pararaph, arguing my case for why the sentence should be included, followed by two brief clarifications
419:
Mike, please don't hack out other peoples changes and make unanimous decisions thinking your opinion is correct. I support this proposition and wanted people to read the actual text for the proposition so they can make there own opinion. This is not outlined verbatim in the article and I feel it is
403:
before attempting to make further edits. Deletion of material without discussion or explanation (note that I said "explanation," where I would expect to see a point by point summary, understandable to other editors, of how the current version is a "biased and inaccurate recitation," and not a simple
291:
Please note that reverting without reviewing the rationale does not constitute "discussion." The language I am attempting to edit has not been clearly discussed on the talk page previuously and so there should be no presumption of consensus. Your apparent willingness to start an edit war to Retain
80:
doesn't explicitly prohibit editing subjects that you are related to, but it does caution editors doing so to take extra care as to not violate other policies. I strongly feel that the user is not disrupting the project in the least. I think it is unfortunate that we are wanting to block a user,
342:
Thank you for your attempt to maintain neutrality in the article on
Proposition 8, but the article contains a great deal of partiality. You showed your partiality by removing my edits, which were simply quotations from the Supreme Court's decision on gay marriage. That's why I put quotation marks
278:
There was no discussion and hence no consensus on the article section I edited PLUS I backed up my edits with extensive quotations and justification. You did not give any rebuttal at all. Before you revert you should at least have an argument to the contrary, reasonable in weight to support the
380:
Mike, you apparently did not read the summary of my edits. I explained that my edits removed the inaccurate and biased legal history in the article and replaced it with the correct legal history as quoted by the state
Supreme Court. I quoted the court verbatim, so your criticism of my edits is
440:
of spurious comments made by the preceding poster regarding my character/motives. I neither edited nor vandalised their post. I understand that your opinion may differ from my own re: the structure of the prop. 8 article, but that is no excuse for needlessly silencing dissenting voices.
311:
Wow, you seem very sensitive about the article. My apologies. I know it is frowned upon to post personal comments. I was just shocked that such a proposal existed and never intended to start a discussion board... With that said, you didn't
399:"Accuracy" of the quotations is not the issue. The narrative of the history, which you are deleting, with which you are apparently the sole editor to take offense, is the issue. Please discuss the deletions you are proposing on
364:
does not in any way match your characterization of it, and without any possible justification you removed background material and citations, concluding with a blatantly biased point-of-view assessment of a future event.
229:
continues, I may be forced to protect the article from editing or take other administrative action. If you have a disagreement with other editors regarding this article's content, please consider taking it to the
253:
article. Editors have been keeping this article on a relatively even keel for weeks, but hit-and-run POV pushers instantly wreck that equilibrium. Protect it for now. I suppose then that the series of warnings on
88:
This user is trying to do all the right things - clearly stating her interests with the organization that she is affiliated with, and she even contacted the foundation ahead of time. I think we should try to
75:
Policy and process aside, I'll note again my opinion on the issue. The user clearly isn't causing any harm, and is in fact, improving content by adding encyclopedic references to our articles. Of course
559:) - multiple editors have been trying to reach consensus on NPOV language, but we've got an obstinate editor who doesn't appear to grok/follow WP policies... thanks for any assistance you can provide. —
476:
That is unfortunate, but was not the result of any action on my part. It may have been a bot or someone hijacking my account? Again, I did nothing to vandalize or remove content from the page.
400:
231:
404:
repetition of your unsupported assertion that the current version reflects bias and must be deleted) may result in you being blocked.
459:
shows about 20k bytes of the talk page were removed and sections were rearranged by your edit when you added the paragraph. The
250:
222:
112:
Thanks for adding in "(Mormon)" to the correction I did on the
Proposition 8 page, I must have just blanked on that!
38:
481:
445:
536:
467:
409:
370:
263:
167:
68:. I've noted my reason a couple of hours ago. If you wish to continue pursuing this matter, I'd recommend
47:
17:
387:
349:
564:
292:
OR without any discussion is indicative of bad faith editing and could result in a block against you. --
332:
147:
lets see was a vote taken? why yes one was so we know how most of
California feels then don't we? --
93:
in this situation and really evaluate what the user is doing, before quickly calling for blocks. -
568:
556:
540:
517:
485:
477:
471:
449:
441:
429:
425:
413:
391:
374:
353:
337:
301:
267:
243:
239:
204:
171:
156:
148:
127:
116:
102:
509:
532:
463:
405:
366:
297:
284:
259:
163:
152:
123:
528:
513:
98:
529:
synthesis of published material that promotes a position that is not in the published sources
255:
69:
560:
200:
218:
90:
77:
317:
65:
524:
343:
around the copy. By deleting that information, you disinformed
Knowledge (XXG) readers.
226:
552:
421:
235:
82:
503:
Why do you consider criticism of the CNN exit poll in prop 8 to be original research?
382:
344:
293:
280:
81:
who is acting as a benefit to some articles by adding references, simply because of
94:
178:
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
176:
No, who said most people even voted? We only know how most of the voters felt.
162:
Your assessment is a blatant POV comment inappropriate for the article. Stop.
258:
labeled "Not adhering to neutral point of view" is in practice ineffective?
72:
as that is a more appropriate venue for extended discussion anyways.
137:
25:
64:
I've declined (and removed) the UAA report you made for
460:
456:
362:
461:revert of that edit was performed by another user.
8:
508:be content with removing it completely.
133:You edit without even trying to discuss
249:I've proposed full protection for the
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
7:
138:http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:MonaVie
78:this conflict of interest guideline
24:
435:Removing Discussions on Talk Page
316:to remove the comment, but w/e.
29:
307:California Proposition 8 (2008)
251:California Proposition 8 (2008)
223:California Proposition 8 (2008)
213:California Proposition 8 (2008)
1:
569:18:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
551:Hi, could you take a look at
541:01:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
518:01:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
486:21:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
472:21:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
450:21:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
430:10:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
302:00:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
414:04:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
392:04:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
375:04:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
354:03:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
338:06:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
268:08:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
244:08:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
217:Hello. Please remember the
205:07:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
172:07:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
157:07:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
128:05:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
103:20:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
91:assume a bit more good faith
584:
18:User talk:Mike Doughney
390:comment was added at
352:comment was added at
274:Your revert was wrong
42:of past discussions.
234:instead. Thanks, --
525:original research
494:regarding monavie
361:Your actual edit
225:article. If the
221:when editing the
219:three-revert rule
54:
53:
48:current talk page
575:
395:
357:
335:
330:
323:
203:
197:
194:
191:
188:
185:
182:
126:
125:
121:
33:
32:
26:
583:
582:
578:
577:
576:
574:
573:
572:
549:
505:
496:
437:
385:
347:
333:
324:
318:
309:
276:
215:
195:
192:
189:
186:
183:
180:
177:
145:
135:
117:
114:
113:
110:
66:User:ABCNews EH
62:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
581:
579:
553:MassResistance
548:
547:MassResistance
545:
544:
543:
504:
501:
495:
492:
491:
490:
489:
488:
478:Awakeandalive1
442:Awakeandalive1
436:
433:
417:
416:
378:
377:
308:
305:
290:
275:
272:
271:
270:
214:
211:
210:
209:
208:
207:
144:
141:
134:
131:
109:
106:
61:
58:
56:
52:
51:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
580:
571:
570:
566:
562:
558:
554:
546:
542:
538:
534:
533:Mike Doughney
530:
526:
522:
521:
520:
519:
515:
511:
502:
500:
493:
487:
483:
479:
475:
474:
473:
469:
465:
464:Mike Doughney
462:
458:
454:
453:
452:
451:
447:
443:
434:
432:
431:
427:
423:
415:
411:
407:
406:Mike Doughney
402:
401:the talk page
398:
397:
396:
393:
389:
384:
383:User:wvogeler
376:
372:
368:
367:Mike Doughney
363:
360:
359:
358:
355:
351:
346:
345:User:wvogeler
340:
339:
336:
331:
329:
328:
321:
315:
306:
304:
303:
299:
295:
288:
286:
282:
273:
269:
265:
261:
260:Mike Doughney
257:
252:
248:
247:
246:
245:
241:
237:
233:
228:
224:
220:
212:
206:
202:
199:
198:
175:
174:
173:
169:
165:
164:Mike Doughney
161:
160:
159:
158:
154:
150:
142:
140:
139:
132:
130:
129:
124:
122:
120:
107:
105:
104:
100:
96:
92:
86:
84:
79:
73:
71:
67:
59:
57:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
550:
506:
497:
457:edit history
438:
418:
379:
341:
326:
325:
319:
313:
310:
289:
279:reversal. --
277:
216:
179:
146:
136:
118:
111:
87:
74:
63:
55:
43:
37:
561:EqualRights
386:—Preceding
348:—Preceding
36:This is an
60:UAA Report
527:and is a
422:Dmckeehan
236:Kralizec!
232:talk page
294:Blue Tie
281:Blue Tie
227:edit war
149:Mrmcuker
119:ђαίгснгм
510:Cydelin
388:undated
350:undated
256:WP:WARN
95:Rjd0060
70:WP:RFCN
39:archive
523:It is
334:(talk)
143:prop 8
108:Thanks
16:<
565:talk
557:Talk
537:talk
514:talk
482:talk
468:talk
455:The
446:talk
426:talk
410:talk
371:talk
314:have
298:talk
285:talk
264:talk
240:talk
201:Talk
168:talk
153:talk
99:talk
83:WP:U
531:.
322:ran
567:)
539:)
516:)
484:)
470:)
448:)
428:)
412:)
373:)
300:)
287:)
266:)
242:)
170:)
155:)
101:)
85:.
563:(
555:(
535:(
512:(
480:(
466:(
444:(
424:(
408:(
394:.
369:(
356:.
327:e
320:O
296:(
283:(
262:(
238:(
196:3
193:8
190:F
187:J
184:T
181:C
166:(
151:(
115:-
97:(
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.